This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Currently (15th september) the stylesheet puts a brace group around each item in the content of a direct element constructor. It should not do this if the item is itself a direct element constructor, ie the xsl:if tests below should be added. <xsl:template match="xqx:elementContent"> <xsl:for-each select="*"> <xsl:if test="not(self::xqx:elementConstructor)"> <xsl:value-of select="$LBRACE"/> </xsl:if> <xsl:apply-templates select="."/> <xsl:if test="not(self::xqx:elementConstructor)"> <xsl:value-of select="$RBRACE"/> </xsl:if> </xsl:for-each> </xsl:template> Without this change XqueryX can not express the equivalent of <y><z xmlns:a="a"/></y> the nearest it can get is <y>{<z xmlns:a="a"/>}</y> But these are not equivalent: declare copy-namespaces no-preserve,no-inherit; <y><z xmlns:a="a"/></y> evaluates to <y><z xmlns:a="a"/></y> but declare copy-namespaces no-preserve,no-inherit; <y>{<z xmlns:a="a"/>}</y> evaluates to <y><z/></y> as the copy-namespace declaration has no effect on the directly embedded element constructor in the first example, but does affect (prohibit) the copying of the namespace when the sequence constructed by the enclosed expression is copied in the second example. David
Thanks for reporting this problem. We will investigate it and produce a solution for a revised XQueryX stylesheet.
We have made the change that you proposed. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
thanks