- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:26:08 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9840 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2010-06-03 13:26:07 --- After this length of time, it's difficult to remember all the details of the reasoning that went into this. I know we spent a lot of time trying to understand exactly what the XSLT 1.0 spec was trying to say, and filling the gaps when it seemed incomplete or inconsistent. The first problem with the 1.0 text is that it says nothing about what happens when there is no ancestor node that matches the from pattern - which doesn't affect this case, but affected a lot of the thinking about how to rewrite the rule. The second problem is that some uses of "ancestor" in this sentence - notably the first one "that ancestor" - only make sense if read as ancestor-or-self; and presumably we decided this was also the intended reading in the phrase "descendants of the nearest ancestor that matches the from pattern". Generally we took the view that xsl:number was sufficiently under-specified in corner cases that we could afford to be a little cavalier about compatibility. In some cases (see bug #5849 for one example that arose after the Rec was published - there were other cases during spec development) we took the trouble to investigate behaviour of existing implementations, and found that it was highly variable. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 13:26:09 UTC