Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:31:08 -0700 |
> > > Maybe one of this days you'll explain why this cannot be done with > > XSLT 1.0. > > Maybe it could be with some extra agreed conventions external to XSL > (which is I think what you are arguing for) but the current situation in > XSLT 1.0 is th exsl:choose mess that I posted earlier. Where the > implementation of the extension function is in a different namespace for > each processor. The agreed-upon separate convention is a cleaner approach, and if it succeeds, it will effect much better interop than xsl:script/my-fave-binding. Doesn't this mean it should be given a try first? -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Jeni Tennison |
RE: [xsl] Converting &, >, <, ", an, Kevin Duffey | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |