[xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...

Subject: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...
From: Gunther Schadow <gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:58:33 -0500
Dear XSL designers/maintainers, please scrutinize your
specification for orthogonality or lack thereof. I think
you have put in too many special limitations. Here is a
list of some:

- result tree fragment is not a node set, requiring the node
  set function that just about anyone supplies but which
  produces only hassles figuring out what namespace this
  node-set function is in.

- call-template has no mode attribute

- Why should it be forbidden to construct the name of a template
  to call?

- Why should it be forbidden to construct the mode

- Why should any qname have to be hard-coded?

This only forces awkward choice forms onto the style sheet
programmer where things could be done soo much simpler!

I will probably have more of those as I go. If you make XSL
a functional language, why don't you go all the way?


Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D.                    gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Medical Information Scientist      Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
Adjunct Assistant Professor        Indiana University School of Medicine
tel:1(317)630-7960                         http://aurora.regenstrief.org

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

Current Thread