Subject: Re: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical" questions about the language From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:15:33 GMT |
> Could someone explain or give me pointers to discussions that leaded to > this decision / trade-off ? Ken gave an answer already, but looking for earlier discussion (on this public list rather than at the w3c) I see the 4th message to mention xsl:else was by Ken:-) http://xsl-list.markmail.org/search/?q=xsl%3Aelse#query:xsl%3Aelse%20order%3Adate-forward+page:1+mid:rj4hvkggvorygerb+state:results The following thread does include comments from WG members at the time... I suspect that the main reason for not having an else is that having xsl:else following the xsl:if seems wrong, logically they ought to be in some xml containing element but if you had to wrap if and else by another element then structurally it is identical to xsl:choose. On the pther handxsl:if does save one level of element nesting so if you just want the single if case this is a useful shortcut. Ken's already pointed out that / and /root match different nodes, so re not really comparable. David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical", Stuart A. Yeates | Thread | RE: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical", Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Get position of parent, Mukul Gandhi | Date | Re: [xsl] Get position of parent, Vasu Chakkera |
Month |