Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:04:29 -0500 (EST) |
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > > In the past I've considered doing this in Saxon. But I'm undecided whether > > the attribute value should be an AVT (therefore always yielding a string) or > > an XPath expression (in which case any value can be passed, but strings need > > to be written in double-nested quotes, e.g. arg="'London'"). Any views? > > > > Obviously, only the latter will make it possible to substitute any > xsl:call-template with xf:func. As pointed out by Steve Muench, the attribute version will not be able to pass result fragments. However, a slightly modified version using "elements" will do the trick... <xf:func one="xpath" /> <xsl:call-template name="func"> becomes <xsl:with-param name="one" select="xpath" /> </xsl:call-template> <xf:func one="xpath" > <xsl:call-template name="func"> <two> <xsl:with-param name="one" <res>frag</res> becomes select="xpath" /> </two> <xsl:with-param name="two"> </xf:func> <res>frag</res> </xsl:with-param> </xsl:call-template> Clearly, the attribute-only version is much cleaner. However, the element syntax below could be used for those times when a result fragment must be passed... I'm not sure I like it though. > > (Though actually, I've also held off because I'm reluctant to implement > > non-portable extensions if they provide nothing more than a saving in > > keystrokes ...) > > They provide far more than saving in keystrokes... Consider the > improved readability, understandability and therefore reliability > of the code. Consider also the cost savings in code > maintenance. And the ability to enter more code in less time... :o))) > > Some mathematicians argue, that whole new disciplines appeared or > were significantly influenced by the appearance of new, better > notation. xsl:call-template is clearly far from the optimal notation > possible. Neat. The choice as to what is in-lined and what is made into a seperate template is largely based (in my case) upon the difficulty required to setup a seperate template and call the template. In my experience, when this pain can be lessened... then better modulization will be the result. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-tem, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] Transformation problem, David Carlisle | Date | [xsl] [ANN] libxslt-0.2.0 is availa, Daniel Veillard |
Month |