Subject: RE: MSXML v. Saxon - whose bug? From: Andrew Kimball <akimball@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:02:46 -0700 |
Francis, Here are some priority examples: PATTERN PRIORITY foo 0 processing-instruction(foo) 0 foo:* -0.25 * -0.5 node() -0.5 text() -0.5 comment() -0.5 processing-instruction() -0.5 foo/bar 0.5 foo/* 0.5 foo[bar] 0.5 *[*] 0.5 */* 0.5 Your mistake is in thinking that foo/* has a priority of -0.5. Only patterns consisting of *just* a NodeTest have priority of -0.5. As soon as you introduce filtering [] or composition /, that bumps the default priority up to 0.5 (because foo/* is more specific than foo or *). ~Andy Kimball MSXSL Dev -----Original Message----- From: Francis Norton [mailto:francis@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:54 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: MSXML v. Saxon - whose bug? Francis Norton wrote: ... > I've got to admit that I often sort out these template priority > questions by testing it then against a good parser, but these two are > giving me different results! > > Any thoughts as to who's got the spec on their side? > I should add that my workround is to add a priority atribute to the intruding template, thus: --- <!-- and generate "attribute" elements with the rest... --> <xsl:template match="itemStatus/*" priority="0"> <attribute name="{name(.)}"><xsl:value-of select="text()"/></attribute> </xsl:template> --- which makes both MSXML3 and Saxon behave as if it was Saxon with a default priority. My (inexpert) reading of http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#conflict (section 5.5.2) is that it *should* have a default priority of -0.5, which makes me think that the problem may be with MSXML3 in this case. Francis. -- Francis Norton. Defy Convention? Deify Convention! XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: MSXML v. Saxon - whose bug?, Andrew Kimball | Thread | Re: MSXML v. Saxon - whose bug?, Francis Norton |
RE: MSXML v. Saxon - whose bug?, Andrew Kimball | Date | Re: Page breaks for text-only (not , Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |