RE: syntax sugar for call-template

>  
>  In the past I've considered doing this in Saxon. But I'm undecided whether
>  the attribute value should be an AVT (therefore always yielding a string) or
>  an XPath expression (in which case any value can be passed, but strings need
>  to be written in double-nested quotes, e.g. arg="'London'"). Any views?
>  

Obviously, only the latter will make it possible to substitute any xsl:call-template with xf:func.

>  
>  (Though actually, I've also held off because I'm reluctant to implement
>  non-portable extensions if they provide nothing more than a saving in
>  keystrokes ...)

They provide far more than saving in keystrokes... Consider the improved readability,
understandability and therefore reliability of the code. Consider also the cost savings in code
maintenance. And the ability to enter more code in less time... :o)))

Some mathematicians argue, that whole new disciplines appeared or were significantly influenced by
the appearance of new, better notation. xsl:call-template is clearly far from the optimal notation
possible.

Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list