|
Subject: Re: [xsl] Strict sequential identity rule? From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 22 Sep 2005 05:52:47 +0100 |
>>>>> "Dimitre" == Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dimitre> Pardon my bad English, but for me you are also a
Dimitre> "vendor", and a "free vendor" :o) of an XSLT processor.
Well, it was really only tongue-in-cheek :-)
Dimitre> Probably vendors of XSLT processors could provide such
Dimitre> facilities?
>> The former is easy to do (but should not be on by default, as
>> it would annoy too many people). The latter is equally easy,
>> but is non-compliant behaviour. So it must be a non-default
>> option. In which case, I think the warning is better.
The real point of my post was to find out which option you would
prefer - a warning, or a suppression.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] Strict sequential identit, Evan Lenz | Thread | Re: [xsl] Strict sequential identit, andrew welch |
| RE: [xsl] Can't use xsl:include hre, UlyLee | Date | Re: [xsl] Unwanted Prefixes in Outp, Alan |
| Month |