Re: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary.

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary.


>
> > But document() is much more than just document(URI) ).
>
> but the other forms just change the base URL for resolving relative URIs
> so no real difference in principle is there?

I'm sorry, but the answer is : "No".

<WD>

Function: node-set document(object, node-set?);

...

When the document function has exactly one argument and the argument is a node-set, then
the result is the union, for each node in the argument node-set, of the result of calling
the document function with the first argument being the string-value of the node, and the
second argument being a node-set with the node as its only member
...

The document function gives rise to the possibility that a node-set may contain nodes from
more than one document

</WD>

Not yet talking about the abusing document() with proprieatry vendor-depended
extenstions,  the current semantics  of the document() is an attempt are to achive :

<xsl:variable name="doc1">
<aggregate>
<xsl:value-of select="document('doc1')"/>
<xsl:value-of select="document('doc2')"/>
</aggregate>
</xsl:variable>

More complex aggregations require 'for-each' e t.c. -
currently all that stuff resides inside the document hack,
only because:

r-t-f is not node-set

Rgds.Paul.



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list