[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] Equal rights for xsl:next-match & co

Subject: Re: [xsl] Equal rights for xsl:next-match & co
From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:44:23 +0100

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17 May 2013 16:20, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It would seem that xsl:next-match and xsl:apply-imports are of the
>> same genre as xsl;apply-templates in that they all result in XSLT
>> going off to search for a template rule to apply.
>> Of the trio only xsl:apply-templates accepts and processes a mode parameter.
>> Supposing I do xsl:next-match within a modal template rule. Why
>> shouldn't that restrict potential matching templates to those of the
>> same mode.
>> Are we looking at some sort of lacuna here or have I overlooked something.
> xsl:next-match returns the next template in match priority order, so
> changing the mode doesn't really make sense there.  If you need to do
> that, just do <xsl:apply-templates select="." mode=" the other mode"/>

It's not about changing to some other mode. It's about whether
<xsl:next-match> should respect the modality of the  "calling
template" when looking for a matching template rule.

In that scenario your suggestion reduces to <xsl:apply-template
select="." mode="theSame mode"/> which is no good.

The comments apply equally to apply-imports and that doesn't have a
mode attribute.

To exemplify in

<xsl:template match="*" mode="X">

should the next-match be restricted to rules in mode X and if it isn't
whether it is legit to want it to be.... (I would have thought so).

If next-match and apply-imports were not treated as  second class
citizens  they would have a mode parameter and the question wouldn't

Since they don't it looks to me like there is a legit semantic question here.

Current Thread