RE: xsl/xslt coding standard

I guess by using an xsl:documentation element at least you give
processor implementors a chance of some kind of documentation support.

Custom markup will require custom stylesheets to format the
documentation in the required way, so it kind of negates the need for
any xsl:doc element.

cheers
andrew


> > I would extend that a little maybe to add some functionality to it,
> > so you could produce api docs javadoc stylee, listing template
> > names, functionality, params etc
> 
> Absolutely. The benefit of allowing *any* element to be counted as a
> documentation element would be that it would be easy for people to
> create their own documentation standards. If I can get away with using
> XHTML, then I can use that; if you want something more sophisticated,
> like an XML version of JavaDoc, then you can use that.
> 
> Another option would be for XSLT 2.0 to have a xsl:documentation
> element and allow anything to reside within that, or perhaps also
> allow an href to point to external documentation (I'd prefer it if my
> documentation structure wasn't dictated by anyone, so I wouldn't want
> the XSLT 2.0 Rec to go any further than that).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002
>  
> 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002
 

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