Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXSL From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:18:05 -0000 |
> From: David Rosenborg [mailto:david.rosenborg@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 28 February 2001 14:45 > Yes, and I think user defined extension functions sits almost > right in the middle of > the two. I think that's why we can find sensible arguments > for choosing > either syntax for this purpose. However, as you know, I think most > of the extension functions will deal with XPath types and should > therefore be implemented in an XPath fashion. Simple question just on this one. Would a resultant stylesheet using this form still be a valid XML document, as per today? Regards DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXS, Jeni Tennison | Thread | [xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXS, David Rosenborg |
RE: [xsl] TransformerFactory.newIns, Kevin Duffey | Date | RE: Performance -- Re: [xsl] RE:"*N, Kevin Duffey |
Month |