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 2002/05/31 17:06:33 UTC

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9542] New: - TransformerIdentityImpl inlining external DTDs

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9542>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9542

TransformerIdentityImpl inlining external DTDs

           Summary: TransformerIdentityImpl inlining external DTDs
           Product: XalanJ2
           Version: CurrentCVS
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Normal
          Priority: Other
         Component: org.apache.xalan.transformer
        AssignedTo: xalan-dev@xml.apache.org
        ReportedBy: keshlam@us.ibm.com


Apparently we're losing the boundaries separating the internal and external 
subsets, with the result that the default/null TrAX transformation is copying 
the latter into the former. 

Note: Offline discussion suggests that our habit of calling 
TransformerIdentityImpl the "default identity transformation" may be a bit 
misleading. Current evidence is that, per the TrAX spec, this unnamed 
transformation should be doing as complete a copy from source to result as is 
possible, including data and details not representable in the XPath data model. 
This means there are places where this really should be doing something 
different from the so-called identity stylesheet. (The DOCTYPE is a good example 
of this; an XSLT 1.0 stylesheet discards it and creates a new one based on 
valuse in <xsl:output>.) We should confirm this and check our documentation to 
be sure folks understand the distinction, and should probably write some 
testcases specifically for this case.

See also Bug 1121, Bug 1831, Bug 5779 for other TransformerIdentityImpl 
concerns we may want address while reviewing this one.


(This replaces a previous bug report, which had some misinformation. My 
apologies.)