On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:54:09PM -0500, Joel E. Denny wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > >but it's not anything there is > >normative prose about nor regression tests to check behaviour. > > That's too bad because it seems to work so well if the required > declaration order is known. > > Although I'd rather stick with pure XSLT 1.0, I'm thinking about solving > my problem by calling EXSLT user-defined functions in the match pattern of > an xsl:key. However, after reading this discussion > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122483 > > I'm feeling slightly uneasy. Assuming there are no variable references > anywhere in the dependency chain of the match pattern, this remains > accepted/supported usage, right?
I said I didn't intend to change things. This is an Open Source project not some black box coming without sources ! If you care about behaviour provide regression tests, check the code, etc ... It's not like I ever refused a good argumentation for some code or some regression tests. I just refuse to change to make non-conforming behaviour ! If what you request is against the spec, you may have troubles sooner or later, if not then you have no reason to be so defensive. The only promise I make is that I will try to stay compilant to the spec (except where the cost requires developments or code dependancies outside the limits sensible for this projects). Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xslt mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xslt
