Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template

Jeni Tennison wrote:
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more strongly.  Thinking about Uche's comments on
> run-time dynamism and introspection yesterday (I don't know what that
> means but it sure sounds good) another option would be single new XSLT
> function:
> 
>   call-template('my:func', 'one', xpath,
>                            'two', $rtf)
> 
> I don't know whether this would be more or less acceptable than a
> means of defining XSLT user extension functions?  The one big
> limitation is that you wouldn't be able to return node sets (aside
> from those constructed as an RTF) so there would be limitations on
> this.
> 
I've been - perhaps lazily - assuming that the implicit RTF -> nodeset
conversion would convert any node structure into the same structure you
started with. For instance if I return a node-set of node-sets I'm
expecting this to be what the calling expression receives. Do you know
of any exceptions, or are you just being cautious?

Francis.

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