Subject: RE: [xsl] Problem with xsl:number formatting From: Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:29:18 +0100 |
> So, in my mind, 'E' is a valid token on which to start. > You're definitely in implementation-defined territory here. An implementation may or may not support a numbering sequence that starts with 'E'; if it does so, it's implementation defined whether that sequence goes (E, F, G, H, I) or (E, G, B, D, F). Saxon will allow format="E" and continue E, F, G, H, I, but there's certainly nothing in the spec to require it. I think the only reliable way to do this across implementations is to compute the section number (either using xsl:number or an expression such as count(preceding-sibling::x), add 4 to rebase it, and then format it using <xsl:number value="x" format="A"/>. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Problem with xsl:number f, G. Ken Holman | Thread | Re: [xsl] Problem with xsl:number f, bryan rasmussen |
RE: [xsl] Problem with xsl:number f, G. Ken Holman | Date | RE: [xsl] Problem with xsl:number f, Budinger [US], Bruce |
Month |