RE: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...

Subject: RE: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...
From: Jonathan Yue <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:15:44 -0800
I agree  "Go all the way" for a programming language. XSL even does not
have a "break" statement. For a simple thing, using XSL has to write
piles of piles of code.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 6:59 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...

Dear XSL designers/maintainers, please scrutinize your
specification for orthogonality or lack thereof. I think
you have put in too many special limitations. Here is a
list of some:

- result tree fragment is not a node set, requiring the node
   set function that just about anyone supplies but which
   produces only hassles figuring out what namespace this
   node-set function is in.

- call-template has no mode attribute

- Why should it be forbidden to construct the name of a template
   to call?

- Why should it be forbidden to construct the mode

- Why should any qname have to be hard-coded?

This only forces awkward choice forms onto the style sheet
programmer where things could be done soo much simpler!

I will probably have more of those as I go. If you make XSL
a functional language, why don't you go all the way?


Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D.                    gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Medical Information Scientist      Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
Adjunct Assistant Professor        Indiana University School of Medicine

 XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread