This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: Question about xsl-xslt
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: [xsl] Question about xsl-xslt
- From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay at iclway dot co dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:47:48 +0100
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> > My sequence in Saxon is:
>
> Is that your "It was vague and so I implemented something that seemed
> sensible" answer or your "I'm in the XSL WG and it is so" answer?
I don't think it's especially clear in the spec, but I came to the
conclusion this was the sequence that made most sense.
I think it's justified on the basis that section 3.4 says whitespace is
stripped after the tree is constructed but before it is "otherwise processed
by XSLT": I think validation counts as "otherwise processed". Similarly,
section 3 says "processing instructions and comments are ignored": ignoring
something doesn't count as "processing" in my book, so I ignore them for all
purposes including identification of whitespace text nodes.
But I've made the mistake before of thinking that the spec means what it
says...
Mike Kay
Software AG
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list