Subject: RE: [xsl] xslt style From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:46:31 -0000 |
> On Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:51 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote: > > > But to answer your more general question, you're correct that in > > unextended XSLT 1.0 you have to call templates to perform functions > > and that sometimes this can lead to verbose and ungainly code. > > However, most XSLT processors have a mechanism for defining > extension > > functions. Several support EXSLT's > func:function/func:result elements, > > which enable you to do: > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, or restarting an ancient debate, but it > strikes me that using XSLT in this way is basically "Wrong" or a Bad > Thing. I've found that usually there is a fairly simple way to avoid > procedural techniques ... Extending XSLT with functions, along the lines of func:function or XSLT 2.0's xsl:function, does not make the language procedural - on the contrary, it brings it closer to being a pure functional language. The difference between a function and a named template is that a named template can only "return" a result tree fragment, while a function can return any value allowed by the type system. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx work: Michael.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] xslt style, S Woodside | Thread | Re: [xsl] xslt style, Jeni Tennison |
RE: [xsl] How do I validate against, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Hi everbody, Michael Kay |
Month |