Re: [xsl] Difference in priority of node() and *

["Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mike for your thoughts. Kindly see my few remarks below.

On Feb 16, 2008 2:38 PM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's certainly not a bug - there was a conscious decision that the default
> priorities could not reflect subsumption relationships in all cases. Some
> might consider that the design could be improved, but it's the kind of thing
> that one can't change retrospectively for reasons of compatibility.

I agree, that providing backward compatibility is important. If we
swap suddenly the default priorities of * and node() patterns, then
lot of legacy code would/might break when supplied to new processors;
and that's certainly not a good idea.

But if we/everybody is convinced, that what I have said (i.e. default
priority of * should be higher than node() ) is correct; and that this
is a better design, then in future version of the language, we can
deprecate the old idea, and adopt the new design.

If you think, my points are valid, I can submit this idea in bugzilla ...


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi