- 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