RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

[DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx]

me
> > Im still -1 on script included within the stylesheet.

dc
> but it's there already (have a look over at 
> microsoft.public.xml.msxml-webrelease)

no thanks David. I've been trapped into proprietary corners before.
Its bloo dy expensive.
  (I had my last mail quarantined, presumably because I used three letter x
in
   succession, by some spam filter along the way?)
> people already have XSLT stylesheets full of msxml:script.

Perhaps they are OK with using M$ only solutions? I'm not.
As I said, I want open standards. My only reason for supporting W3C's
efforts.
(Something about the holloween messages springs to mind)

<snip/>
>  Sometimes "convenience"
> features makes all the difference. I think grouping is the 
> prime example
> here (even though it's not within scope for XSLT 1.1) It is clear that
> most grouping problems can be solved in XSLT, and since SM's insight
> into using keys for this, they can even be solved relatively 
> efficiently
> but it always just looks weird and arcane. Grouping primitves 
> would make
> all the difference,

Perhaps then, using the logic of my previous mail, <xsl:group .....
is a candidate for 1.1 I'd have no problem with that at all.
I think quite a few would welcome it. I'd be the first to admit
that present solutions are hardly mainstream. 
 Yes please WG, give us something we can all use easily!

How about some suggested syntax Steve?

 as would a node equality predicate so you 
> could test
> whether two nodes were equal (or one node was in a node set) without
> resorting to generate-id() or count(.|$ns) = count($ns).

Less sure on this one, but I think you are almost confirming
the approach I suggested. Bring the common ones into mainstream XSL
and keep out scripting.

(That way you won't have all those variables changing around you ;_)

Still -1.

Regards DaveP

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