Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments -Examples please From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:25:08 GMT |
> Hmm. But this sounds at odds with David's claim. I might be > misunderstanding, but it sounded as if the TEI stykesheets were positively > riddled with extension-selection trees. Maybe because my claim had to be read with a certain amount of poetic licence. I didn't mean to imply that Norm's and Sebastian's sheets were full of such extensions. But where extensions are used, they are fukcoded as just the kind of bick "processor case switch" that I showed, wither using xsl:choose or xsl:fallback, depending on th ecase. So I think my argument is still valid that coding using extension functions in 1.0 requires that kind of thing, and xsl:script is trying to avoid that. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments -Exampl, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments -Exampl, David Carlisle |
Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, David Carlisle |
Month |