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=3312

*** shadow/3312 Tue Aug 28 11:14:20 2001
--- shadow/3312.tmp.4285        Wed Sep  5 05:40:07 2001
***************
*** 5,11 ****
  |       Status: NEW                         Version: 2.0.1                   |
  |   Resolution:                            Platform: Other                   |
  |     Severity: Normal                   OS/Version: Other                   |
! |     Priority: Other                     Component: org.apache.xalan.xsltc  |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |  Assigned To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                     |
  |  Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                          |
--- 5,11 ----
  |       Status: NEW                         Version: 2.0.1                   |
  |   Resolution:                            Platform: Other                   |
  |     Severity: Normal                   OS/Version: Other                   |
! |     Priority: High                      Component: org.apache.xalan.xsltc  |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |  Assigned To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                     |
  |  Reported By: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                                          |
***************
*** 25,28 ****
  
  In the stylesheet, the for-each select="//xx/descendent::*" instruction
  is not returning the correct node set. It seems to return every node 
! in the xml source.
--- 25,31 ----
  
  In the stylesheet, the for-each select="//xx/descendent::*" instruction
  is not returning the correct node set. It seems to return every node 
! in the xml source.
! 
! ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2001-09-05 05:40 -------
! Note: this may be the same problem as reported in bug 3360.

Reply via email to