Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: xsl:function From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:51:14 -0700 |
> It's already okay to have five <xsl:param> statements upon entry, so I > figure: why should five <xsl:result> statements be such a big deal? A hacky > suggestion: an RTF could be constructed, where the results would be > (ordered) immediate children of the root. This wouldn't be necessaru if > tuples existed in the language. Most annoyingly, the case where one value > is being returned isn't very elegant. I'm not sure if it's possible to > seriously suggest returning each result without a parent node connecting > them (like an XML fragment). I agree, but I think it should be handled generally: XSLT 1.1/2.0 should have list types (prefereably heterogenous). Of course not even the desire to experiment with this could warm me to the "external object" business in the XSLT 1.1 WD. Now back to denouncing execrences... -- 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 -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: xsl:function, Jeni Tennison | Thread | RE: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Kaganovich, Yevgeniy |
[xsl] what is biztalk ??, Awasthi, Anand | Date | Re: [xsl] 2.1 Must Allow Matching o, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |