- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:25:57 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24378 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com --- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> --- We discussed this issue at the Prague face to face. On consideration, our inclination was not to extend on-empty to further elements, but indeed to cut it back from some places which allow it now. The current semantics of on-empty for xsl:copy make it mean different things in different cases, which is confusing to some WG members and potentially problematic for implementors. We discussed a proposal to allow on-empty only in cases where the node being constructed can have children (is an element or a document node). One WG member found the semantics on xsl:copy confusing enough that he wanted to eliminate it there and allow it only on literal result elements, xsl:element, and xsl:document (etc.) We didn't feel we had a strong enough consensus to make a binding decision at the moment, though, given that the spec is in Last Call. We may wish to come back to this on another day, earlier in the day. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 16:25:59 UTC