Subject: Re: [xsl] RE; Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:45:33 -0500 (EST) |
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > > > > <xf:func one="xpath" /> <xsl:call-template name="func"> > > becomes <xsl:with-param name="one" > > select="xpath" /> > > </xsl:call-template> > > > > The other problem with this syntax is you can't use it if the template > > name has a prefix already. > > > The problem of having namespace-prefixed templates/functions will not exist > if the syntax would be like this: > > <xf:short-call-template funcName="anyPrefix:foo" param1Name="param1Value" > ............... > paramNName="paramNValue" > /> I'd rather stick with the syntax above. I've yet to see a template which uses a qname, and if a template does have a qname, then the full-blown call-template syntax can be used. The point is to have a very succinct syntax. > fn(functionQName, param1Name="param1Value", ... ) Nice syntax for an xpath invocation of a "xsl:function". ;) Clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] RE; Re: RE: syntax sugar for , Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | RE: [xsl] RE; Re: RE: syntax sugar , Michael Kay |
[xsl] RE; Re: RE: syntax sugar for , Dimitre Novatchev | Date | [xsl] Rick Jelliffe's comment on XP, Miloslav Nic |
Month |