Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath 2.0 From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:39:23 GMT |
> But you never did that anyway. did so:-) (he lies) yes I think it's correct to say that they've done a good job walking a compatibilty tight-rope here, and I don't think many if any real stylesheets will be affected by this, but I can't help feeling some unease at where there was a former clean lisp-ish empty list/set = false non-empty = true semantics, there is now almost the same effect but only via following some rather more convoluted conversion rules. Price of progress perhaps... David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XPath 2.0, Jeni Tennison | Thread | RE: [xsl] XPath 2.0, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] XPath 2.0, Jeni Tennison | Date | [xsl] performance with XSLT, Dayanand Reddy |
Month |