[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: needing clarification about XSL transformation
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:59:18 -0500 (EST) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Vitaly Ostanin wrote: > > > With this style xslt-processor must not copy comments and PI. > > This style not overriding built-in templates, so saxon is > > incorrect. > > ah, so as i read this, the conflict resolution is that, > even if i have a template that matches "node()", that will > be overridden by the more explicit built-in rule that matches > "comment()" explicitly, whose effect is to do nothing with > the comment. Sometime I see in spec "node", sometime -- "element"... :( > perhaps it's just kay's wording, but in his book at the > bottom of p. 315, he writes (after a list of how template > matching is done): I don't read this book, but I believe in http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt :) > "If there are *no* [my emphasis] templates that match > the selected node, the built-in template for the relevant > node type is used." > > the way i read this is that the "node()" test *would* > match a comment(), and thus my template would be used. > apparently, that's not what he meant, but you can see > how it could be interpreted that way, i hope. node() is not a comment, not PI, not attribute - it just node like <node/> comment() is just a comment like <!-- comment --> processing-instruction() is just PI like <?... ?> -- Regards, Vyt mailto: vyt@vzljot.ru JID: vyt@vzljot.ru
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]