Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:23:47 GMT |
> Why does it need to be that complicated? because if you introduce a system for binding XSLT written code to Xpath functions that _only_ does simple cases eg, not cope with qnames as function names or node sets as argumnements, then you may find your options are severly limited when you come to specify the "full job" if you have to keep compatible with a half way solution that has been added earlier. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Clark C. Evans | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Clark C. Evans |
[xsl] Transforming HTML to NITF, Adam Van Den Hoven | Date | Stylesheet portability (Long) (Was:, David_Marston |
Month |