Subject: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:59:55 +0000 |
Hi Mike, > I've just looked at your current spec, as I hadn't been following > all the fluctuations as it developed. I'm pleased to see that some > of the weirder things didn't make it in! Good, I'm glad it's not as bad as you feared. > But there are still two things I don't much care for. One is the > "implicit result" of an RTF [snip] > Yes, it's more verbose, but it's also more consistent, it means > there's only one way of doing it instead of two, it detects a class > of user errors, and in any case, I'm not sure returning RTFs is that > important a use case. I'm in agreement. I'll make the change in the next version unless someone comes up with a good reason why not. > Secondly, I don't like treating multiple exsl:result's as a > "recoverable error". I can't think of too many existing cases in > XSLT 1.0 where people are going to write stylesheets that depend on > errors being recovered by one processor, where they are going to > have considerable difficulty fixing the error if another processor > chooses not to recover from it. > > I still prefer having a static constraint on where <exsl:return> can > appear, but if you can't live with that, have a strict rule that > only one may be instantiated. That sounds reasonable to me. I'm a bit wary of the recoverable errors generally because of the portability problems that they create and the complications it gives when testing compliance, as David Marston pointed out. I don't think that I can live without allowing exsl:result within xsl:for-each, which means there has to be a dynamic constraint. We could add static constraints like not having any elements following the exsl:result within the exsl:function, unless they're xsl:fallback. That would make sense, and also make the only place the dynamic constraint really applies be within xsl:for-each. I'll make this change in the next version too. > (And incidentally, I prefer "return" to "result". It's in tune with > the imperative style of other keywords such as call-template, > apply-templates, include, import.) That's one vote for exsl:result (Uche) and one vote for exsl:return (you). Any other opinions? Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Functional programming in, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Functional programming in, Dave Hartnoll |
RE: [xsl] Is this a legal XPath Exp, Phil Gooch | Date | RE: [xsl] Comment about XSLT Compli, Ball, Mike |
Month |