Re: document(a,b) for b not a singleton node set

David Carlisle wrote:
> 
> Could someone please confirm (or deny) my reading of xslt section
> 12.1...
> 
> If the second argument of document() is a nodeset with more than one
> node, the all but the first node (in document order) have no effect.
> 
> If the second argument is an empty node set, and the string value of the
> first argument is a relative url, then the behaviour is undefined.
> (One might expect that the behaviour in this case is the same as when
> no second argument is given, but I don't see at present how to infer
> that.)

Yes: I don't see how to read it another way.

<rant> Obviously this undefined behaviour is accidental. I think that
for an empty-node-set second argument to give the same behaviour as no
second argument, as you mention, is _easily_ the best candidate for what
was intended. Undefined behaviour leaves no grounds for criticizing an
XSLT processor which adopts _any_ value for the base uri, or which
always returns an empty node set, or which always signals an error. Can
something be done about this? I don't know if this kind of thing is
usually corrected in the errata for a spec, but I don't see why not: it
_is_ an error, and (to be pragmatic) the spec has only been a
recommendation for 2 weeks and I doubt if a "change" now would seriously
inconvenience anyone. </rant>

-- 

cheers

phil

*witness relocation program alumnus*


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