Subject: Re: Feature Request: a fail condition for <xsl:if> From: Tyler Baker <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:21:55 -0500 |
"G. Ken Holman" wrote: > I'd like to see the use of <xsl:otherwise> as an "else" in the <xsl:if> > test construct: > > <xsl:if test=""> > ... > <xsl:otherwise> > ... > </xsl:otherwise> > </xsl:if> > > As well, a backward incompatible change would be to rename <xsl:otherwise> > to <xsl:else>, then we would have: > > <xsl:choose> > <xsl:when test=""> > ... > </xsl:when> > <xsl:when test=""> > ... > </xsl:when> > <xsl:when test=""> > ... > </xsl:when> > <xsl:else> > ... > </xsl:else> > </xsl:choose> > > and > > <xsl:if test=""> > ... > <xsl:otherwise> > ... > </xsl:otherwise> > </xsl:if> > > Alternatively (no pun intended), perhaps just remove the existing <xsl:if> > construct entirely and force people to use <xsl:choose>, substituting the > existing "when" with "if": > > <xsl:choose> > <xsl:if test=""> > ... > </xsl:if> > <xsl:if test=""> > ... > </xsl:if> > <xsl:if test=""> > ... > </xsl:if> > <xsl:else> > ... > </xsl:else> > </xsl:choose> Forget about being backwards compatible as XSL is still a working draft. Nonetheless, this is a great idea. You would not have to wrap everything in a choose element if you did something like: <xsl:if test=""> </xsl:if> <xsl:else-if test=""> </xsl:else-if> <xsl:else> </xsl:else> Not sure how to represent this in a DTD, but I think it would be more natural to most programmers. Even if you leave xsl:choose around, it would sure be convenient for xsl:if to at least have a fallback processing element like the suggested xsl:else. Tyler XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Feature Request: a fail conditi, Eduardo Gutentag | Thread | Re: Feature Request: a fail conditi, James Clark |
Re: More entity confusion and my op, Chris Maden | Date | Re: More entity confusion and my op, Chris Maden |
Month |