Subject: RE: [xsl] xsl:include is necessary after all From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:09:11 -0700 |
> Not fine. The *-template caught most of the elements since the templates > from B.xsl had no chance to match anything. So I had to modify > the xsl:import > in A.xsl to xsl:include. Since A.xsl was not my invention I would rather > leave this stylesheet unchanged. > > Is this something the WG should consider when developing XSLT 2.0? Besides breaking existing stylesheets, what sorts of issues would arise if conflicts were resolved the other way around instead (priority first and *then* import precedence)? Evan XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xsl:include is necessary , Oliver Becker | Thread | RE: [xsl] xsl:include is necessary , Evan Lenz |
Re: [xsl] grouping, Oliver Becker | Date | RE: [xsl] xsl:include is necessary , Evan Lenz |
Month |