Subject: Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Resolution With saxon:evaluate() From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:28:18 +0100 |
Hi Eliot, >> 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. Yes, it does imply that. > 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. OK, I'll forward on to the EXSLT mailing list and see if anyone has any objections to making that change. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, W. Eliot Kimber | Thread | Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, W. Eliot Kimber |
Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Res, W. Eliot Kimber |
Month |