- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:12:59 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3326 ------- Comment #2 from david_marston@us.ibm.com 2006-06-14 19:12 ------- >...if there's only one token and it's NOT alphanumeric then we treat it as the prefix. That would be reasonable. Continuing the aside: I agree that the verbiage "the prefix always appears exactly once" and its parallel for the suffix greatly reduces the ambiguity from 1.0. The core of the ambiguity is whether an empty sequence (or "empty list" as the 1.0 Erratum E23 said it) suppresses all rendition; i.e., that prefix and suffix only occur as a byproduct of having a number sequence/list to render. So it could be called an order-of-operations issue. For 2.0, it would be helpful to have a Note like this: NOTE: The only way that xsl:number will not produce a text node is when the sequence of numbers is empty and there is no prefix and there is no suffix.
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 19:13:04 UTC