Thanks a lot for clarifying this! If not a compliance issue, it is a
difference between xslt 1 processors in browsers and should be
documented(?).
Do you think this is only a problem with element-available() or for a
broader category of functions?

Manfred

2008/4/30 David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>  > In this case, LibXSLT is, indeed, not in compliance.
>
>  That is not at all clear to me.
>  The wording of these things is a lot tighter in xpath2 so it's clearer
>  to be definite there, but in xslt 1, then it is not the case that
>  . (evaluating to a node) matches the description
>
> "The argument must evaluate to a string that is a QName."
>
>  The xpath1 string functions that take strings also take a
>  node set, in which case the string value of the first node in document
>  order is taken, but that is (I think) a feature of the function, rather
>  than a general calling rule, the rule is given in section 4.2 of the
>  xpath spec, but the definition of function-available in the xslt spec
>  does not reference that section explictly or implictly (as it could have
>  done by using the defined term "string function").
>
>  David
>
>
>
>  ________________________________________________________________________
>  The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
>  and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
>  Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
>
>  This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
>  powered by MessageLabs.
>  ________________________________________________________________________