Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:45:19 GMT |
I do not like the idea of "return" inside a "template", I was only after an abbreviated method to call templates from within other templates; not call templates from within a xpath expr. Maybe I lost the thread of this thread but I thought your suggested short form was exactly calling the template using xpath extension function syntax? If I had a need for calling a method from within XPath, then I *do* like your suggestion about a seperate "function" declaration for creating functions callable from Xpath. It makes sense to have it a seperate construct for the reasons I believe you pointed out: .... different from the 'template requirements; and as such they should be seperate constructs. I belive this is your position isn't it? IMHO, trying to merge them will be FAQ heaven.... Oh so basic agreement around then on this point, it seems. 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: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Clark C. Evans |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments -Exampl, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Rescuing XSLT from Niche , David Carlisle |
Month |