>>> Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@xxxxxxxxxx> 04/15 8:19 am >>>
> My understanding of processing modes is that 
>    <xsl:apply-templates modes="by-number"/>
> should only apply template rules that have the by-number mode and
> ignore all template rules that have no mode.

That should be 'mode', not 'modes'. The match sequence will be a template that HAS the required 'mode' and, if that fails a template with NO mode. *HOWEVER* 'mode's are NOT sticky, so given this:

-----
<doc>
<foo>
<bar>wibble</bar>
</foo>
</doc>
-----

and

-----
<xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl"
        result-ns="">

<xsl:template match="doc">
<xsl:apply-templates mode="test" />
</xsl:template>

<xsl:template match="bar" mode="test">
Found bar in test, value: <xsl:value-of select="text()" />
</xsl:template>

<xsl:template match="bar">
Found bar **NO MODE**, value: <xsl:value-of select="text()" />
</xsl:template>

</xsl:stylesheet>
-----

The result is:

-----
Found bar **NO MODE**, value: Wibble
-----

Why ? Because, as I said, modes aren't sticky and have to be *EXPLICITLY* passed on. However, <foo> was matched by the IMPLICIT rule, which didn't explicitly pass on the mode. This, compined with the fact that there is no way of find the *XSL* parameters to the triggering <xsl:apply-templates ... /> means that 'mode' is *almost* useless. (It *DOES* have uses, but trying to use it effectively means implementing lots of "do-nothing" templates which just call apply-templates with the same mode as they had!)

There is no reason why 'mode' should not be sticky, since it could easily be cancelled ('mode=""') and, if no mode is matched it defaults to the empty mode.

Alistair



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list