Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:31:45 -0000 |
> <saxon:function> looks just right, now I've looked it up. > > And I'm just hoping and guessing - again without research - > that implementing this feature is largely syntax-sugar - and if not, > let's make it optional. > It wasn't difficult to implement but it wasn't pure syntactic sugar either. There were three things that needed care: using positional arguments instead of named arguments in the call; preventing the function writing to the output tree; and ensuring that lazy evaluation of node-sets still worked in the case where a node-set was returned from a function. But apart from the questions of data typing mentioned earlier (and those are no worse than any other implications of data typing on XSLT), I don't think there are any reasons to regard the facility as being risky, or bad coding practice. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSLT Functions in XSLT (Was: Re, Francis Norton | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Francis Norton |
RE: [xsl] Converting &, >, <, ", an, Clapham, Paul | Date | [xsl] Transformation problem, Matthias O. Will |
Month |