Your message dated Sun, 2 Mar 2008 16:39:29 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#423937: xsltproc: disable-output-escaping fails to
work in stylesheet
has caused the Debian Bug report #423937,
regarding xsltproc: disable-output-escaping fails to work in stylesheet
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
423937: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423937
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: xsltproc
Version: 1.1.20-1
Severity: normal
xsltproc fails to comply with the disable-output-escaping attribute
as applied to <xsl:attribute> and <xsl:text> tags.
This is a regression, as earlier versions of xsltproc correctly parsed
the following:
...
<xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes">é</xsl:text>
...
The current release complains about eacute being an unknown entity, as
would be expected if disable-output-escaping was not enabled.
Usage of & in place of the & (with disable-output-escaping still
in place) fails to produce the expected output of é in the
target document.
The start of the XSL template showing the defect is as follows:
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:output method="xml" omit-xml-declaration="yes"
doctype-public="-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
doctype-system="DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"/>
<xsl:template match="/">
...
</xsl:template>
<xsl:stylesheet>
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.19.1 (PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages xsltproc depends on:
ii libc6 2.5-5 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgcrypt11 1.2.4-2 LGPL Crypto library - runtime libr
ii libgpg-error0 1.4-2 library for common error values an
ii libxml2 2.6.28.dfsg-1 GNOME XML library
ii libxslt1.1 1.1.20-1 XSLT processing library - runtime
xsltproc recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:25:20PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 15.05.2007, 11:32 +1000 schrieb Ben Stewart:
>
> > xsltproc fails to comply with the disable-output-escaping attribute
> > as applied to <xsl:attribute> and <xsl:text> tags.
> >
> > This is a regression, as earlier versions of xsltproc correctly parsed
> > the following:
> >
> > ...
> > <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes">é</xsl:text>
> > ...
> >
> > The current release complains about eacute being an unknown entity, as
> > would be expected if disable-output-escaping was not enabled.
>
> It would be a bug to not complain here AFAIK. You can mask it with
>
> <![CDATA[é]]>
>
> if you want. But if you want it your way ...
>
> > Usage of & in place of the &
>
> ... you must do this. And this works for me with the current xsltproc
> version in Sid.
>
> > (with disable-output-escaping still
> > in place) fails to produce the expected output of é in the
> > target document.
>
> What does it produce in your case? Can you provide test files, that
> reproducibly show this issue for you?
>
> > The start of the XSL template showing the defect is as follows:
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" ?>
> > <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
> > xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
> >
> > <xsl:output method="xml" omit-xml-declaration="yes"
> > doctype-public="-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> > doctype-system="DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"/>
> >
> > <xsl:template match="/">
> > ...
> > </xsl:template>
> > <xsl:stylesheet>
>
> I attached an example XSLT file based on this template. It produces the
> result I expect.
All that is said here is true, and this definitely doesn't look like an
actual bug.
Mike
--- End Message ---