You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@xalan.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2001/09/11 16:31:10 UTC
[DO NOT REPLY: Bug 3550] New:
xsltc fails sort01, sort32 and sort33 on NaNs
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=3550
*** shadow/3550 Tue Sep 11 07:31:10 2001
--- shadow/3550.tmp.26351 Tue Sep 11 07:31:10 2001
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,20 ----
+ +============================================================================+
+ | xsltc fails sort01, sort32 and sort33 on NaNs |
+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ | Bug #: 3550 Product: XalanJ2 |
+ | Status: NEW Version: 2.0.0 |
+ | Resolution: Platform: Sun |
+ | Severity: Normal OS/Version: Solaris |
+ | Priority: Other Component: org.apache.xalan.xsltc |
+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ | Assigned To: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org |
+ | Reported By: tamiro@east.sun.com |
+ | CC list: Cc: |
+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ | URL: |
+ +============================================================================+
+ | DESCRIPTION |
+ This isn't that big a deal, but to be 100% technically correct
+ according to Dave Marston, the Erratum says that on numerical,
+ sorts non-numbers (NaNs) should come before for ascending and
+ after for descending sorts.