PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. TO FURTHER COMMENT
ON THE STATUS OF THIS BUG PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW
AND USE THE ON-LINE APPLICATION. REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE
DOES NOT UPDATE THE DATABASE, AND SO YOUR COMMENT WILL
BE LOST SOMEWHERE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2901

*** shadow/2901 Mon Jul 30 12:47:36 2001
--- shadow/2901.tmp.28323       Mon Jul 30 12:47:36 2001
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,170 ----
+ +============================================================================+
+ | xsltc fails conf tests numbering39,40                                      |
+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ |        Bug #: 2901                        Product: XalanJ2                 |
+ |       Status: NEW                         Version: CurrentCVS              |
+ |   Resolution:                            Platform: All                     |
+ |     Severity: Normal                   OS/Version: All                     |
+ |     Priority: Other                     Component: org.apache.xalan.xsltc  |
+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ |  Assigned To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                     |
+ |  Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                          |
+ |      CC list: Cc:                                                          |
+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ |          URL:                                                              |
+ +============================================================================+
+ |                              DESCRIPTION                                   |
+ These two tests do numbering with multiple levels, and use the default interior
+ separator (the dot). Trailing characters in the format string look like a
+ separator but aren't. Other processors treat them accordingly, whereas XSTLC
+ confuses the trailing chars as a separator. The only difference between the
+ tests is that numbering39 has format="**A**" and numbering40 has format="*%A|+".
+ 
+ Expected Ouput (test 39)
+ ========================
+ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+ <out>: Test for source tree numbering
+ **A**: Level A
+ **A.A**: Level B
+ **A.B**: Level B
+ **A.B.A**: Level C
+ **A.C**: Level B
+ **A.C.A**: Level C
+ **A.C.A.A**: Level D
+ **B**: Level A
+ **B.A**: Level B
+ **B.A.A**: Level C
+ **B.A.A.A**: Level D
+ **B.A.A.A.A**: Level E
+ **C**: Level A
+ **C.A**: Level B
+ **C.A.A**: Level C
+ **C.A.A.A**: Level D
+ **C.A.A.A.A**: Level E
+ **C.A.A.B**: Level D
+ **C.A.A.B.A**: Level E
+ **C.A.B**: Level C
+ **C.A.B.A**: Level D
+ **C.B**: Level B
+ </out>
+ 
+ Obtained Output
+ ===============
+ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
+ <out>****: Test for source tree numbering
+ **A**: Level A
+ **A**A**: Level B
+ **A**B**: Level B
+ **A**B**A**: Level C
+ **A**C**: Level B
+ **A**C**A**: Level C
+ **A**C**A**A**: Level D
+ **B**: Level A
+ **B**A**: Level B
+ **B**A**A**: Level C
+ **B**A**A**A**: Level D
+ **B**A**A**A**A**: Level E
+ **C**: Level A
+ **C**A**: Level B
+ **C**A**A**: Level C
+ **C**A**A**A**: Level D
+ **C**A**A**A**A**: Level E
+ **C**A**A**B**: Level D
+ **C**A**A**B**A**: Level E
+ **C**A**B**: Level C
+ **C**A**B**A**: Level D
+ **C**B**: Level B
+ </out>
+ 
+ XSL (test 39)
+ =============
+ <?xml version="1.0"?>
+ <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"; version="1.0">
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="doc">
+   <out><xsl:apply-templates/></out>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="title">
+     <xsl:number level="multiple" count="a|b|c|d|e" format="**A**"/><xsl:text>:
+ </xsl:text><xsl:value-of select="."/><xsl:text>
+ </xsl:text>
+ </xsl:template>
+ 
+ <xsl:template match="text()"><!-- To suppress empty lines
+ --><xsl:apply-templates/></xsl:template>
+ 
+ </xsl:stylesheet>
+ 
+ XML
+ ===
+ <?xml version="1.0"?>
+ <doc>
+   <title>Test for source tree numbering</title>
+   <a>
+     <title>Level A</title>
+     <b>
+       <title>Level B</title>
+     </b>
+     <b>
+       <title>Level B</title>
+       <c>
+         <title>Level C</title>
+       </c>
+     </b>
+     <b>
+       <title>Level B</title>
+       <c>
+         <title>Level C</title>
+         <d>
+           <title>Level D</title>
+         </d>
+       </c>
+     </b>
+   </a>
+   <a>
+     <title>Level A</title>
+     <b>
+       <title>Level B</title>
+       <c>
+         <title>Level C</title>
+         <d>
+           <title>Level D</title>
+           <e>
+             <title>Level E</title>
+           </e>
+         </d>
+       </c>
+     </b>
+   </a>
+   <a>
+     <title>Level A</title>
+     <b>
+       <title>Level B</title>
+       <c>
+         <title>Level C</title>
+         <d>
+           <title>Level D</title>
+           <e>
+             <title>Level E</title>
+           </e>
+         </d>
+         <d>
+           <title>Level D</title>
+           <e>
+             <title>Level E</title>
+           </e>
+         </d>
+       </c>
+       <c>
+         <title>Level C</title>
+         <d>
+           <title>Level D</title>
+         </d>
+       </c>
+     </b>
+     <b>
+       <title>Level B</title>
+     </b>
+   </a>
+ </doc>

Reply via email to