Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template)

Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template)
From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:17:22 +0000
Hi Uche,

>> 2. I'm persuaded by Steve's observation that static invocation is
>> very different from dynamic invocation and that dynamic invocation
>> is something that could be applied to functions (and indeed XPaths)
>> across the board. I think that we should focus the discussion now
>> on static invocation, and address dynamic invocation once we've got
>> that out of the way.
> Well, as I responded to Steve, I don't see the harm in having both
> conversations in parallel. As we discuss common XSLT extensions do
> we *have* to do so serially? Maybe it's enough to just discuss the
> matters in separate threads. But I don't necessarily think one must
> precede the other.

Actually the two are tied quite closely - the decisions we make about
how to invoke functions statically have implications on whether a
simple evaluate() function will be sufficient for dynamic invocation.
Of course we can discuss things in parallel.

> It looks as if you've pretty much taken up the gavel in this
> discussion. Good. No better moderator. I still think we should find
> a way to mark the conversation. I, for one, am not often able to
> follow the huge volume of this list. If we all agree on a common
> subject line marking or set up another list, I suspect we can draw
> other implementors in the same boat.

OK, what about [exsl] as a prefix to subject lines?



Jeni Tennison

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread