Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:10:26 +0000 |
Jeni Tennison wrote: > > > Couldn't agree more strongly. Thinking about Uche's comments on > run-time dynamism and introspection yesterday (I don't know what that > means but it sure sounds good) another option would be single new XSLT > function: > > call-template('my:func', 'one', xpath, > 'two', $rtf) > > I don't know whether this would be more or less acceptable than a > means of defining XSLT user extension functions? The one big > limitation is that you wouldn't be able to return node sets (aside > from those constructed as an RTF) so there would be limitations on > this. > I've been - perhaps lazily - assuming that the implicit RTF -> nodeset conversion would convert any node structure into the same structure you started with. For instance if I return a node-set of node-sets I'm expecting this to be what the calling expression receives. Do you know of any exceptions, or are you just being cautious? Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, David Carlisle |
[xsl] Re: [ANNOUNCE] XSLT-process 1, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: [xsl] news, Miloslav Nic |
Month |