Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:17:22 +0000 |
Hi Uche, >> 2. I'm persuaded by Steve's observation that static invocation is >> very different from dynamic invocation and that dynamic invocation >> is something that could be applied to functions (and indeed XPaths) >> across the board. I think that we should focus the discussion now >> on static invocation, and address dynamic invocation once we've got >> that out of the way. > > Well, as I responded to Steve, I don't see the harm in having both > conversations in parallel. As we discuss common XSLT extensions do > we *have* to do so serially? Maybe it's enough to just discuss the > matters in separate threads. But I don't necessarily think one must > precede the other. Actually the two are tied quite closely - the decisions we make about how to invoke functions statically have implications on whether a simple evaluate() function will be sufficient for dynamic invocation. Of course we can discuss things in parallel. > It looks as if you've pretty much taken up the gavel in this > discussion. Good. No better moderator. I still think we should find > a way to mark the conversation. I, for one, am not often able to > follow the huge volume of this list. If we all agree on a common > subject line marking or set up another list, I suspect we can draw > other implementors in the same boat. OK, what about [exsl] as a prefix to subject lines? Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] 2.0 feature request, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |