Subject: RE: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:40:01 -0400 |
> > Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set() > > extension function should have a solution without using it. > > I tend to disagree with that statement.
Me too. Turing completeness is not the same as closure over the data model. To take an obvious example, there is no way of creating a result tree that contains an unparsed entity, even though the data model allows unparsed entities to exist.
Closer to the hypothesis in question, I don't believe it is possible in XSLT 1.0 without the xx:node-set() extension to create a result tree containing a namespace that is declared in neither the source document nor the stylesheet, if the result tree contains no element or attribute whose name is in that namespace.
Cheers, Wendell
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] Passing params problem., Francesco Barresi | Date | Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, David Carlisle |
Month |