Well, in this case the argument *does* evaluate to a string that is a
QName. It consequently matches the quoted description.
No, it evaluates to a nodeset with one node whose string value matches
QName. That is not the same as evaluating to a string.
Is this interpretation of your words correct?
yes
And the definitions of element-available() and function-available()
don't say that much, so you can't rely on automatic conversion to just
happen.
Yes, although to be honest I would expect them to happen in this case
(as apparently would implementors of other xslt systems.) but the
subject line of "non compliance" made me look whether it really is non
compliant, and I think it isn't: it's just a loosely worded spec allowing
differing behaviour. The new version 2 spec is more tightly worded so
the behaviour is more clearly defined but this is an xslt1 question.
David
________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs.
________________________________________________________________________
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--