Subject: RE: [xsl] Question about xsl-xslt From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:47:48 +0100 |
> > My sequence in Saxon is: > > Is that your "It was vague and so I implemented something that seemed > sensible" answer or your "I'm in the XSL WG and it is so" answer? I don't think it's especially clear in the spec, but I came to the conclusion this was the sequence that made most sense. I think it's justified on the basis that section 3.4 says whitespace is stripped after the tree is constructed but before it is "otherwise processed by XSLT": I think validation counts as "otherwise processed". Similarly, section 3 says "processing instructions and comments are ignored": ignoring something doesn't count as "processing" in my book, so I ignore them for all purposes including identification of whitespace text nodes. But I've made the mistake before of thinking that the spec means what it says... Mike Kay Software AG XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Question about xsl-xslt, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] Question about xsl-xslt, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] Control over html output, Andy Joslin | Date | RE: [xsl] Control over html output, Michael Kay |
Month |