Subject: Re: How is this part of the XSLT specification to be interpreted? From: Jeni Tennison <Jeni.Tennison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:36:40 +0100 |
[the message that in my last message I said was a 'previous email' but then found that I'd never sent] David Carlisle wrote: >> Of these ways, the first is the purest, probably (though it's a bit >> annoying having to use xsl:fallback). > >It is perhaps less annoying if you put the xslt instruction that you are >documenting _inside_ the fallback. Wouldn't that perhaps cause problems with an innovative XSLT Processor that actually *could* interpret the documentation and do something useful with it (perhaps giving the documentation when a particular template breaks for some reason)? In these cases, the advanced XSLT processor would ignore the xsl:fallback, and hence not do the actual processing. Admittedly that's not a problem at the moment, but when some generous soul writes an extension element for SAXON for interpreting documentation in our stylesheets, then it will be :) Cheers, Jeni Dr Jeni Tennison Epistemics Ltd, Strelley Hall, Nottingham, NG8 6PE Telephone 0115 9061301 ? Fax 0115 9061304 ? Email jeni.tennison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: How is this part of the XSLT sp, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: How is this part of the XSLT sp, Mike Brown |
Re: Saxon Frustrations, Carlos Araya | Date | Re: How is this part of the XSLT sp, Warren Hedley |
Month |