- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:37:38 +0700
- To: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@icl.com>
- CC: "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Kay Michael wrote: > > > Section 5.6 says that "A template rule that is being used to override a > > > template rule in an imported stylesheet can use <xsl:apply-imports>"; it > > > does not say what happens if there is no such overridden rule. > > > > Section 5.8 says: "The built-in template rules are treated as if they > > were imported implicitly before the stylesheet". So the correct > > behaviour is to invoke the built-in template rule. > > I agree that invoking the built-in template rule is probably the right > behavior. However, I don't agree that the current spec clearly implies this. > 5.6 says that the only rules considered are those "imported into the > stylesheet element containing the current template rule", while 5.8 uses the > phrase "imported implicitly before the stylesheet". Neither "imported into" > nor "imported before" is formally defined, and it certainly isn't obvious > that one implies the other. In 5.8 the phrase "the stylesheet" can only be > read as meaning the whole stylesheet tree, not any particular "stylesheet > element" (what I prefer to call a stylesheet module), so one could well > argue that the built-in rules do NOT appear in the subtree rooted at the > stylesheet module containing the current template rule (which is my reading > of "imported into"). OK. I take your point. I'll record this as a problem. James
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 00:57:55 UTC