I thought the spec was quite clear:
(a) If there are more numbers than format tokens, then the last format token
will be used to format remaining numbers
(b) Each number after the first will be separated from the preceding number
by the separator token preceding the format token used to format that number
So if there is one format token, then it is used to format all the numbers,
and each one is separated from the preceding number by the separator token
that precedes that format token.
(In reading the XSLT 1.0 spec it helps to know that it was written by James
Clark; I asked him many questions similar to yours, and would always get
replies that suggested I should take the text as written at face value. He
never wasted words, and the text invariably means what it says, even when
you think it might not. The fact that the same phrase is used in the two
sentences above "the token.. used to format [the number]" is pretty clear
evidence of the intention.)
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Matheson [mailto:jack(_at_)snazzypost(_dot_)com]
Sent: 15 April 2005 15:31
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: [xsl] xsl:number question (XSLT 1.0)
According to the spec, when a sequence number contains more
values than
there are formatting tokens, the last formatting token is
used for the
excess values. Unfortunately, it is a little vague on which separator
token to use with the excess values.
It says that a '.' is to be used if no separator token
exists, but does
this also apply to the case where the final formatting token
is re-used
with excess sequence values?
Here is a quick test I did to try and see how different
processors are
handling this:
<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
version="1.0">
<xsl:template match="a/b/c/d">
<xsl:number level="multiple" count="*" format="(1)"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
If my input document is...
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<a><b><c><d/></c></b></a>
...then Saxon produces this:
(1(2(1(1)
...while Xalan produces this:
(1.2.1.1)
Both answers seem perfectly reasonable to me, given the lack
of clarity
in the 1.0 spec.
Can anyone help me figure out which is (more) correct?
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--