[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: needing clarification about XSL transformation
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Markus Spath wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Vitaly Ostanin wrote: > > > > > >>With this style xslt-processor must not copy comments and PI. > >>This style not overriding built-in templates, so saxon is > >>incorrect. > > > > > > ah, so as i read this, the conflict resolution is that, > > even if i have a template that matches "node()", that will > > be overridden by the more explicit built-in rule that matches > > "comment()" explicitly, whose effect is to do nothing with > > the comment. > > > > perhaps it's just kay's wording, but in his book at the > > bottom of p. 315, he writes (after a list of how template > > matching is done): > > > > "If there are *no* [my emphasis] templates that match > > the selected node, the built-in template for the relevant > > node type is used." > > > > the way i read this is that the "node()" test *would* > > match a comment(), and thus my template would be used. > > apparently, that's not what he meant, but you can see > > how it could be interpreted that way, i hope. > > but that actually would imply that kay contrdicts himself. > > XPath rec says: A node test node() is true for any node of any type > *whatsoever* i definitely don't buy *that*, since most of the docs are adamant that, at the very least, an attribute node would not match node() since, technically, an attribute node is not considered a child node. i'm getting confused again. > > anyway: if you are really interested in resolving this issue, i'd suggest you > post it at the xsl mailing list, both kay and veillard (author of xsltproc, if > i remember right) will probably be eager to proove their transformer is conformant. i think i'll do just that. > or you take a pragmatic approach and just include comment() and pi(), > since the w3c recommendations are ambiguous sometimes. i'm doing that now, but it sure would be nice to nail this once and for all. rday
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]