Subject: Re: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML-Tables with row-span / col-span From: David Tolpin <dvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:26:59 +0400 (AMT) |
> David Tolpin on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:51:09 +0400 (AMT)) > > This means that elimination of node-set > > means impact on performance, and this is a partial quote, the words omitted were that it is not the worst thing; the worst thing is that it means loss of predictability of performance. > Whether the absence of RTF type in XSLT impacts on performance > presumably depends on what you were doing to get round the restriction > in XSLT1. I am not discussing XSLT 1.0. There is no way to build node-set in XSLT 1.0. XSLT 1.0 + *:node-set, however, provides a clean way to get a node-set where it is needed. XSLT 2.0 insist on building addressable node-set even when it is not. The practice provides evidence that implementation of efficient node-set is difficult. > As I don't really like using extension elements (even x:node-set()) for > portability reasons, I routinely go The question is not whether to have a way to build a node-set or not, but whether to have an explicit way to build a node-set, or to do it always when an RTF is needed. For portability reasons it is often makes sense to just provide a chain of stylesheets wrapped by an external glue, such as Bourne shell, perl or whatever else is available. There is more than one tool. David Tolpin http://davidashen.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML, David Tolpin | Date | [xsl] Any function/feature in XSL t, Govil, Anoop (Contra |
Month |