Subject: RE: [xsl] XSL - Documentation From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:04:23 +0100 |
> If you pretended that the C function documented above was a > XSLT function and invented some simplified syntax on the fly > (as I'm about to do), you'd end up with something like: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > <x:doc xmlns:x="http://example.org/documentation"> > $res:: Result tree. > $fo_doc:: #FoDoc to which to write output. > $fo_tree:: Pointer to generated FO tree. > $area_tree:: Pointer to generated area tree. > $continue_after_error:: Whether to continue after a formatting error. > $debug_level:: What debugging output to generate. > $error:: Indication of any error that occurred. > > Generates FO and area trees from $res result tree. > </x:doc> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > which is a lot easier to write, read, and update than putting > DocBook or DITA into the stylesheet and is still sufficiently > structured that, with some XSLT munging this time, you can > get from there to DocBook or DITA and from thence to HTML or > to whatever. But do we want users to have to learn yet another markup language? It seems to me that the obvious place to document a function parameter is an extension attribute on the xsl:param element: <xsl:param name="fo_tree" x:doc="Pointer to generated FO tree"/> Regards, Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL - Documentation, Tony Graham | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL - Documentation, James Fuller |
Re: [xsl] Grouping question, Martin Honnen | Date | Re: [xsl] XSL - Documentation, James Fuller |
Month |