You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2004/03/09 01:48:32 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27301] -
FilterTransformer: Generates not matching block tags
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27301>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27301
FilterTransformer: Generates not matching block tags
------- Additional Comments From joerg.heinicke@gmx.de 2004-03-09 00:48 -------
I get another result. That might be due to a more intelligent Xalan (finally - I
often saw results like above):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<files xmlns:i="http://apache.org/cocoon/include/1.0">
<block xmlns="http://apache.org/cocoon/include/1.0" id="1">
<i:include src="file1.xml"/>
<i:include src="file2.xml"/>
<i:include src="file3.xml"/>
<i:include src="file4.xml"/>
</block>
</files>
Can you try it with Xalan 2.6?
Though I don't like the output above. How do you want to match on block later on
in the pipeline if you only can guess in which namespace it is?
Therefore I will commit a patch so that the result looks like the followign:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<files xmlns:i="http://apache.org/cocoon/include/1.0">
<block id="1">
<i:include src="file1.xml"/>
<i:include src="file2.xml"/>
<i:include src="file3.xml"/>
<i:include src="file4.xml"/>
</block>
</files>
Maybe we should put block in its own namespace, but first I will patch this thing.
Joerg
namespace for FilterTransformer (was: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27301] -
FilterTransformer: Generates not matching block tags)
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 09.03.2004 01:48, bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27301
>
> FilterTransformer: Generates not matching block tags
...
> Maybe we should put block in its own namespace ...
What do you think about this? The RoleFilterT extending FilterT already
has its own namespace "http://apache.org/cocoon/role-filter/1.0". So
putting the block element into "http://apache.org/cocoon/filter/1.0" or
is this namespace already in use?
Joerg