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

Subject: Re: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary.
From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:01:40 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary.

> > But document() is much more than just document(URI) ).
> but the other forms just change the base URL for resolving relative URIs
> so no real difference in principle is there?

I'm sorry, but the answer is : "No".


Function: node-set document(object, node-set?);


When the document function has exactly one argument and the argument is a node-set, then
the result is the union, for each node in the argument node-set, of the result of calling
the document function with the first argument being the string-value of the node, and the
second argument being a node-set with the node as its only member

The document function gives rise to the possibility that a node-set may contain nodes from
more than one document


Not yet talking about the abusing document() with proprieatry vendor-depended
extenstions,  the current semantics  of the document() is an attempt are to achive :

<xsl:variable name="doc1">
<xsl:value-of select="document('doc1')"/>
<xsl:value-of select="document('doc2')"/>

More complex aggregations require 'for-each' e t.c. -
currently all that stuff resides inside the document hack,
only because:

r-t-f is not node-set


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread