RE: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary.

Subject: RE: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary.
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:55:58 -0500
Hi Paul,

Paul said:

The semantics of document() is reduced to:

node-set document(URI)

I wish document (" ") hack goes away, because there will be
no actual need in it, I think, most of the things could be done
with the variables, because of (B) - but that looks optional to me....
.... Maybe there is realy some person using old assembly language
tricks with XSLT ....

I agree that (C) may be too strong.  I'm sorry, but I see it this way.

I would like to get some examples of why document(URI) *only*
it is not enough. I think the desired extra functionality could be
achived in more natural fashion with the help of  A and B or
should go to some other function.

Didier replies:
I am now too tired to argue and will just express an opinion. I totally
disagree with you on (C). The actual document() function is and will be
tremendously useful for XML based web services. I am already experimenting
the usefulness of this function everyday with web services provided by
Oracle DB tools, Microsoft SQL DB tools and web service providers like Enough to conclude that the document() function is probably
one of the most useful function for content aggregation. But please, Paul,
do not come back  again with arguments about document management, or the
document hack, as I said, I am too tired to argue and do not want to be
accused of bashing again. So, I just expressed an opinion based on a day to
day experience in my labs.

Didier PH Martin
Email: martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Conferences: Web Chicago(
             XML Europe (
Book: XML Professional (
column: Style Matters (

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread