Do you think fn:unparsed-text() should be different with respect to
determinism than fn:doc() (and fn:document(), come to that)? Or do you
think they should also be nondeterministic?
There is no reason why doc() and document() should be "more deterministic"
than unparsed-text().
I don't expect that anyone wrote XSLT code that relies on these functions
being deterministic. Thus, correcting the tagging in a future specification
and implementing them the right way is not likely to result in
compatibility issues.
Cheers,
Dimitre
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:26 AM Norm Tovey-Walsh ndw(_at_)nwalsh(_dot_)com <
xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com <
xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> writes:
It seems to me that tagging the function unparsed-text() as
"deterministic"
was rather inaccurate... And definitely not useful, if we need hacks as
workarounds for its limitations...
Do you think fn:unparsed-text() should be different with respect to
determinism than fn:doc() (and fn:document(), come to that)? Or do you
think they should also be nondeterministic?
(I don’t feel strongly one way or the other, I’m just wondering about
the distinction.)
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Tovey-Walsh <ndw(_at_)nwalsh(_dot_)com>
https://nwalsh.com/
If you don't have the time to do it right, where are you going to find
the time to do it over?
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--