Subject: Re: [xsl] mystery #2: testing document() without failure From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:09:51 +0100 |
> So is it wrong to rely on something like ( 'fraid so. I think it's a bug in the spec, but the last time I checked it was the same in the xslt2 drafts. > it works in saxon. don't rely on everyone being as kind as Mike:-) But try it with -w2 otption which asks saxon not to recover from errors if it is not forced to by the spec. xt used to die on this. Not sure about the others. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] mystery #2: testing docum, Robert Koberg | Thread | RE: [xsl] mystery #2: testing docum, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] mystery #2: testing docum, Robert Koberg | Date | Re: [xsl] Netscape XSL and ' charct, David Carlisle |
Month |