Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:56:16 GMT |
J> as a non-recursive and fairly hacky solution. Hey I was going to post that:-) One man's (or woman's) "fairly hacky" is another's "more in the XSLT style" Personally an xsl:append looks deeply suspect to me, if it's required for functions why isn't it required for the almost identical situation of binding node sets to variables? If it is also required for that is "append" the right concept for a declarative language, or should it be more like <xsl:variable select="foo[postion('some named construct corresponding to an xsl:sort setup') < 5]"/> David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Clark C. Evans |
Re: [xsl] cannot reach the inner ta, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Vendor-specific data-type, David Carlisle |
Month |