Subject: Re: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary. From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:01:40 -0800 |
----- Original Message ----- From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Future XSLT extensions. document(). Summary. > > > But document() is much more than just document(URI) ). > > but the other forms just change the base URL for resolving relative URIs > so no real difference in principle is there? I'm sorry, but the answer is : "No". <WD> Function: node-set document(object, node-set?); ... When the document function has exactly one argument and the argument is a node-set, then the result is the union, for each node in the argument node-set, of the result of calling the document function with the first argument being the string-value of the node, and the second argument being a node-set with the node as its only member ... The document function gives rise to the possibility that a node-set may contain nodes from more than one document </WD> Not yet talking about the abusing document() with proprieatry vendor-depended extenstions, the current semantics of the document() is an attempt are to achive : <xsl:variable name="doc1"> <aggregate> <xsl:value-of select="document('doc1')"/> <xsl:value-of select="document('doc2')"/> </aggregate> </xsl:variable> More complex aggregations require 'for-each' e t.c. - currently all that stuff resides inside the document hack, only because: r-t-f is not node-set Rgds.Paul. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Future XSLT extensions. documen, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: Future XSLT extensions. documen, David Carlisle |
RE: MSXML variables and DOCTYPE, Jeff Ferguson | Date | Re: Future XSLT extensions. documen, Paul Tchistopolskii |
Month |