Subject: Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:57:13 +1000 |
On 4/30/05, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Karl, > > I think you may be misinterpreting what Dimitre said. At any rate, I took > "should have a solution without using it" to mean "will also be solvable > without it". No warrant is given as to whether that solution is "good" in > any sense -- it could be very long, or require heaps of time and memory to run. > > I don't believe Dimitre intended to imply that because you always have an > alternative, you should not use xxx:node-set(). There is a set of cases for > which the alternative you have may be theoretically possible, but > prohibitively difficult in practice. Thank you, Wendell, this is correct. For example, FXSL for XSLT 1.0 uses heavily the exslt:node-set() extension function -- the only extension function used in FXSL. In fact, this made me implement a subset of EXSLT(of course containing the node-set() extension) for MSXML4 two years ago. Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Uses for XSL (was Re: [xsl] f, Jay Bryant | Thread | RE: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Elliotte Harold | Date | Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |