Subject: RE: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:10:14 -0000 |
> In short, I see the 'function requirements as completely > 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.... Yes, that's exactly the conclusion I came to. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Clark C. Evans | Thread | Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re, Jeni Tennison |
Re: [xsl] Re: Re: Re: Reliance on i, Jeni Tennison | Date | RE: [xsl] To what extent can sortin, Michael Kay |
Month |