Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:28:48 +0000 |
Hi Steve, > Would it be useful to take Michael Kay's "spec" for > <saxon:function> as a strawman proposal to start with: > > http://users.iclway.co.uk/mhkay/saxon/saxon6.2/extensions.html#saxon:function That would certainly be another approach. I thought that pulling out the design questions would help focus the discussion on the sticking points and hopefully enable some kind of resolution. If people feel it would be helpful to have illustrations of various combinations of the options, then I could certainly put some together? > I think clearly separating the specification of the abilities: > > -> to statically define and statically > invoke functions in XSLT, and > > -> to dynamically invoke functions > > would be useful. Some implementors may be interested in the former, > but not the latter, or vice versa. I do seem to be having trouble with terminology on this topic. By dynamic invocation do you mean something like exsl:function()/exsl:call()? Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Steve Muench | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji |
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Steve Muench | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 Grouping Use Cas, DPawson |
Month |