Subject: Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Resolution With saxon:evaluate() From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:08:21 -0500 |
Jeni Tennison wrote: > I guess it is implicit on the site, but I was intending that when you > have a function signature like: > > exsl:node-set(object) > > it means that the argument is required and that it's an error if it's > missing. If it were: Hmm. That suggests that the Saxon implementation of node-set() is not conforming as it doesn't throw an exception when no argument is passed. But I actually think that having "node-set()" return an empty node set is the better behavior--it's what I would expect from my experience with other programming languages and it makes it possible to explicitly create an empty node set. Cheers, E. -- W. Eliot Kimber, eliot@xxxxxxxxxx Consultant, ISOGEN International 1016 La Posada Dr., Suite 240 Austin, TX 78752 Phone: 512.656.4139 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, Jeni Tennison |
Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, W. Eliot Kimber | Date | [xsl] DOM and XML parser, ashu t |
Month |