Re: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)

Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:01:52 GMT

> For a start how do you think a general layout of such proposal should look like?
> What sections and in what order?

well actually for higher order functions (which probably have less
chance to get in than regexps, as it would require extending the data
model, so be more of a change for the Working Group) I don't think the
need at the moment for a worked out proposal, just to re-iterate that
there is a _requirement_ for the functionality, based on 2 years of
xpath 1 experience.

This is to counter the "nice idea for the future, but not needed for
Xquery 1" answer which you will probably get. I think XSLT users need to
be more vocal that two years merging XPath with Xquery only to add
features needed for Xquery, without adding missing functionality shown
up by XSLT use is not really what's required of a merged Xpath/Xquery

In other words I think you just need to cut out the paragraph from your
message to this list and send it to xpath-comments.


> but I'll need help from everybody, especially from people,
> who are XSLT experts and native English speakers (like you and Jeni).

Hmp your english (as you type it) is a lot better than mine (as I type
it) :-)

This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread