Subject: RE: [xsl] format-number underspecified (Was: XSLT 1.1 comments from Steve Muench) From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:26:19 -0000 |
> >Oracle has both Java and C implementations. I did not hear > the developers > >of our C implementation complaining about format-number(). They just > >implemented the behavior as noted in the spec. > > What spec is that, Steve? I have not seen a spec that is > complete enough > to cover all the details. I consider it a big conformance issue. Here > are my prior comments within the Xalan community: .... > I'd add another comment, for completeness. The XSLT 1.0 specification doesn't say what happens if the format pattern is invalid, for example, if it contains characters that have a defined meaning in JDK 1.2 but not in JDK 1.1. At the moment the output from Saxon depends on which JDK you are using. So it's not only the non-Java implementors who have problems with this one! As Scott (I think) said, it looks with hindsight like a mistake. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] format-number underspecif, Steve Muench | Thread | Re: [xsl] format-number underspecif, David_Marston |
Re: [xsl] To pass parameters to fun, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] CDATA back to its origina, David Carlisle |
Month |