Re: New XT release

Subject: Re: New XT release
From: james anderson <James.Anderson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:18:47 +0200
it remains that the form named "xsl:variable" does not denote a variable, it
denotes the binding of a variable. otherwise, for example, the dtd should
require that it be empty. even the noted examples and discussion maintain this
where they evoke forms such as "define", or "let" to explain the concept "variable".
it would have seemed more accurate were the element named "xsl:define",
"xsl:declare", or something else which better denotes the binding.

G. Ken Holman wrote:
> At 99/04/21 08:58 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote:
> >I'm not sure why xsl:constant is now named xsl:variable. I see no way of
> >assigning to them (other than declaring them!) so they are not really
> >variable.
> Paul, this is the way I felt until I expressed the same opinion on the
> DSSSL list and was promptly (and heavily) chastized for having expressed
> such a misleading comment!
> :{)
> I wouldn't dare chastize you (or anybody else) since I felt the same way
> myself, so I'll just let you read what was said to me.
> Since reading Frank's comments, I agree with his reasoning and now better
> understand the specification writers' use of the term.
> I hope this helps.
> ........ Ken

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread