Re: Normalize / Simplify HTML-Tables with row-span / c

> 	David Tolpin on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:51:09 +0400 (AMT))
> > This means that elimination of node-set
> > means impact on performance,

and this is a partial quote, the words omitted were that it is not
the worst thing; the worst thing is that it means 
loss of predictability of performance.

> Whether the absence of RTF type in XSLT impacts on performance
> presumably depends on what you were doing to get round the restriction
> in XSLT1. 

I am not discussing XSLT 1.0. There is no way to build node-set in XSLT 1.0.

XSLT 1.0 + *:node-set, however, provides a clean way to get a node-set
where it is needed. XSLT 2.0 insist on building addressable node-set even
when it is not. The practice provides evidence that implementation of
efficient node-set is difficult. 

> As I don't really like using extension elements (even x:node-set()) for
> portability reasons, I routinely go

The question is not whether to have a way to build a node-set or not,
but whether to have an explicit way to build a node-set, or to do it
always when an RTF is needed.

For portability reasons it is often makes sense to just provide a chain
of stylesheets wrapped by an external glue, such as Bourne shell, perl 
or whatever else is available. There is more than one tool.

David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/

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