RE: [xsl] Re: Re: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XPath 2.0

["bryan" <bry@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>2. What I find ridiculous is not the "new world of XML Schema-typed
>documents ", but a functional language that will allow the following:

><xsl:variable name="x" select="0"/>
><xsl:for-each ...
>  <xsl:variable name="x" select="$x + 1"/>

The above does seem messy.

>or

><xsl:variable name="x" select="0"/>


><xsl:variable name="x" select="3"/>

>  <xsl:variable name="x" select="$x + 2"/>

can you point me to the part in the spec where that is allowed? If
that's right I'm gonna have to take the day off to go indulge in heavy
drugs.






>"Thus, the following is not an error, but is discouraged, because the
>effect
>is probably not what was intended. " ?

This sounds like a stylistic manuals warning against indulging in slang,
because the meaning conveyed is often not the meaning intended. Does
xslt 2.0 allow slang?!
Will great xslt users be able to use these facilities of the new
language because of a sort of poetic license available to them?



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list