I don't think you'd have much luck that way. Volunteering for building
up an up-to-date test suite would be much more helpful because that
could directly be used for compliance testing.
Jeremias Maerki
On 28.11.2007 13:41:25 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> >> I’v
Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>> I’ve sent a request for clarification on xsl-editors@
>
> Good idea. Due to the lack of a useful XSL test suite that is the only
> way to improve interoperability between implementations. Some day, I'll
> take on this task..
Makes me think of it: does anyone kn
On 27.11.2007 18:29:33 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > You find that surprising? You should be used to that by now. :-)
>
> That was ironical. Looks like I still have progress to make in terms of
> joking in English :-\
D'oh. Well, there's a problem you ca
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> You find that surprising? You should be used to that by now. :-)
That was ironical. Looks like I still have progress to make in terms of
joking in English :-\
> I think
> the spec can be interpreted both ways. Have you checked what other
> implementations d
You find that surprising? You should be used to that by now. :-) I think
the spec can be interpreted both ways. Have you checked what other
implementations do? If you find only one behaviour, we've missed
something. ;-)
Jeremias Maerki
On 21.11.2007 12:19:56 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
