RE: [xsl] include error

Subject: RE: [xsl] include error
From: "Scott Trenda" <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:29:59 -0600

It doesn't quite make sense why you're including a template in another
stylesheet that should override a template you've defined in the current
stylesheet... but such is the nature of the beast when it comes to XSLT
used in the wild. (group environments and such)

If you know that the template in the included stylesheet should always
override the template in any stylesheet that includes it, you can always
explicitly set the template's priority attribute, and that would fix the
duplicate-match error. It won't work if the stylesheet is imported, as
it will have a lower import precedence, which is always more important
than template priority. But it should work fine when the stylesheet is

10 or so should be the most you should ever ideally use for the priority
value, to avoid a priority-race between stylesheets, resulting in
ridiculously large numbers in the long run. Like z-index: 2147483647 in
CSS... it sounds silly, but I've seen it before.

~ Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:44 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [xsl] include error

> ...this is exactely what I don't need: The imported templates
> have to override the importing as they are more specialized
> as the ones. Shall I just turn arround the mechanism and
> import the general stylesheet into the more specialized?

Yes, absolutely. You should always import a general-purpose module from
special-purpose module, never the other way around.
> Besides this, for curiosity:
> You state that "[i]t may well cause errors due to the
> presence of duplicate declarations; in fact, if the
> stylesheets contains definitions of global variables or named
> templates, and is included more than once at the same
> precedence, such errors are almost inevitable." (XSLT 2.0,
> 3rd ed., p. 330)
> - What does "may" mean?

This is in relation to including the same module more than once.

I think the "may" is correct: There are cases where this won't throw an
error, for example, if the modules are empty, or if they contain
rules (match templates) that are never matched. But I wouldn't defend

Michael Kay

Current Thread