This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Re: xsl:element
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: xsl:element
- From: Mike Brown <mike at skew dot org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 04:15:51 -0600 (MDT)
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> > So if you did something like
> >
> > <xsl:element name="foo" xmlns="blah">
> > <bar/>
> > </xsl:element>
> >
> > then you should get
> >
> > <foo>
> > <bar xmlns="blah"/>
> > </foo>
I made this statement by reading the spec, not by actually trying it out :)
> Using MSXML3 you get:
>
> <foo xmlns="blah"><bar /></foo>
>
> [...]
> With Saxon the results are, respectively:
>
> <foo xmlns="blah"><bar/></foo>
I am at a loss to explain this. Perhaps I am misreading the spec.
Michael?
> If you use the "namespace" attribute on an xsl:element like this:
> <xsl:element name="foo" namespace="blah">
> <bar/>
> </xsl:element>
>
> Then you get:
>
> <foo xmlns="blah"><bar xmlns="" /></foo>
>
> [with Saxon...]
> <foo xmlns="blah"><bar/></foo>
Here MSXML looks more correct than Saxon.
The literal result element doesn't have any namespace nodes on it,
so it has no namespace bindings in effect; it can only be in the
default/null namespace. The namespace of the containing element
shouldn't matter. Or should it?
Argh.
- Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
mike j. brown, fourthought.com | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
denver/boulder, colorado, usa | personal: http://hyperreal.org/~mike/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list