Re: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical" questions about the language

Subject: Re: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical" questions about the language
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:15:33 GMT
> Could someone explain or give me pointers to discussions that leaded to 
> this decision / trade-off ?

Ken gave an answer already, but looking for earlier discussion (on this
public list rather than at the w3c) I see the 4th message to mention
xsl:else was by  Ken:-)

The following thread does include comments from WG members at the

I suspect that the main reason for not having an else is that having
xsl:else following the xsl:if seems wrong, logically they ought to be in
some xml containing element but if you had to wrap if and else by
another element then structurally it is identical to xsl:choose. On the
pther handxsl:if does save one level of element nesting so if you just
want the single if case this is a useful shortcut.

Ken's already pointed out that / and /root match different nodes, so re
not really comparable.


The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 

Current Thread