Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:36:06 -0500 |
Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > does this mean you would favour XSLT extensions in XSLT >(<saxon:function> style) I don't know of anyone who's against this. It's a matter of getting the design right... there are complications when you get into the details. I would rather see this laid on top of XSLT 2.0, since I think there are type system ramifications. I wrote: > designs for things like the document() function Sorry, I meant the document element, i.e. multiple output docs. Duh. -scott XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Francis Norton | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Francis Norton |
xsl:script considered dangerous -- , Clark C. Evans | Date | XSLT Functions in XSLT (Was: Re: [x, Steve Muench |
Month |