RE: essential test cases?

Dan Conolly wrote:

> > There is nothing special about that test case, it is just an example
> > using a relative URU. So presumably anyone who ever argued for the
> > literal interpretation (which isn't just me, no matter how much you
> > wished it were) must have argued that both uses were in the same "bat"
> > namepsace (and so the document authors should probably have used
> > better namespace names, such as absolute URI)
>
> Well... I was trying to avoid presuming or infering, having
> had little success with that lately.
>
> I now take it that you dispute that the two bats should
> be treated as distinct by XSLT implementations.
>
> Julian Reschke and Simon St.Laurent also spoke up, but
> I can't quite tell if they meant to say "I disagree
> that XSLT implementations should treat the bats as
> distinct."

OK, to clarify:

I think that XSLT should treat them as equal if they are literally equal.
This is not what the XPath spec says, but it seems that all current
implementations work this way and (many? most?) people are happy with this.
So I would suggest to bring XPath in line with the Namespace rec.

Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2000 11:42:55 UTC