Subject: RE: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT) From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:56:10 -0000 |
> I must have missed a part of the discussion -- was there a > feeling that > it would be inappropriate to overload xsl:value-of? When the RTF > concept is removed, would it not be possible to say that xsl:value-of > just returns the original node set instead of a copy? It > would then be > possible for templates (or exsl:functions) to return references to the > original node sets, and xsl:value-of would IMHO be a natural > choice for this return value issue. It is very much part of the semantics of xsl:value-of that it converts the supplied value to a string. xsl:copy-of would be closer to the mark, but still not quite right, because that still converts numbers and booleans to strings. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:, Lassi A. Tuura | Thread | Re: [xsl] Functional programming in, Uche Ogbuji |
Re: [xsl] escaping <![CDATA[, Steve Muench | Date | Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:, Dave Gomboc |
Month |