DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9575>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9575 count() returns wrong value ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-06-07 13:22 ------- There's a distinction between a namespace aware (Level 2) DOM and DOM nodes which are created using the namespace aware (Level 2) calls. The former does not, unfortunately, imply the latter. The code you've shown us is using Level 1 DOM calls to create the elements and attributes. Per the DOM API spec, these will not correctly set localname even for non-qualified names, and hence will not yield a DOM we can process correctly. This may be unrelated to your symptom, but correcting that is a necessary first step if you want to put your data through Xalan. (You may want to reread the sections of the DOM Level 2 Recommendation which deal with how these calls differ and how namespaces are handled in the DOM. I tried to argue for a design which would allow the Level 1 calls to be equivalent to simply using unqualified names, but there are a few edge-cases which forced us to go the other way. The upshot is that Level 1 DOM Nodes can not reliably be passed into an an application which expects Level 2 DOM Nodes, even if they were created in a Level 2 DOM implementation. Sorry, but that's the nature of the beast.) ((Folks have proposed modifying Xalan to add a level-1-DOM input stage, as an extension of the current DOM2DTM layer. This wouldn't be hugely difficult. But it _would_ have to be something users explicitly requested, since its behavior would differ from the current DOM2DTM in some subtle and not-necessarily-intuitive ways... so you'd still have to understand the difference between these two cases. And frankly, I don't think continuing to encourage use of the obsolete DOM calls is a net public service.))
