John Lumley

After today's brief discussion, requiring distinct priorities on all rules to me just implies a strict ordering of a set of rules (easy to implement - sort in ascending order...

I'm puzzled - the [conflict resolution rules for accumulator rules](https://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#accumulators) (at least in XSLT3.0), clearly state that: > If there is a matching rule, then a new value is computed...

> The spec doesn't require a warning here, but warnings are always permitted. Interesting - I've looked through the XSLT3 spec for every mention of `warning` and can't seem to...

Is there any merit in (for non-streaming cases) extending to permit parameters for each `apply-templates` invocation? For example one of my 'pipelines' (in the grammar EBNF conversion!) starts: ``` ```...

I might possibly have an XSLT conversion of the File Spec into F&O, at least for the catalog. I'll have a look later. John Sent from my iPad > On...

On 19/11/2018 11:54, Michael Kay wrote: > I'm not quite sure what the current format is, but for specs that are > essentially lists of function specs, I find it...

> On 19 Nov 2018, at 14:57, Michael Kay wrote: > > I see. So (if I understand correctly) we did it in reverse - extracted the function-catalog.xml by up-conversion...

Very dim recollections of putting this test together - was it all of 5 years ago? It was of course tested on Saxon's Java framework and examining the code looks...

Did my response to the list get through? Sometimes I don't see the response. Actually think about it - I was wrong - above 7 octets, not 8, we use...

My initial reaction was 'so sometimes the `return` keyword has to be quoted?' but of course I hadn't realised that it was in the context of element node construction (I've...