[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: RE: syntax su
Hi Jeni, > I think the upshot of this is that unless we introduce a proper > construct like (test ? true : false) that only evaluates the relevant > expression, we *have* to enable xsl:if/xsl:choose to be specified > within function declarations. An exsl:if() function will not be > sufficient. That's correct. > So would I. In the long long long term, there shouldn't be any > extension functions because everything that's usefully done within an > XPath should be in the XPath core. Here I don't agree, I think there will always be room/need for extension functions. For performance reasons and functionality reasons, e.g. interaction with applications outside of the XSLT/XPath engine. But by introducing a few enhancements in XPath we could singnificantly reduce those situations. > Of course, working on creating common extension functions that do all > the node set manipulation we need to do is a very worthwhile aim. In > fact if you have the energy and feel strongly enough then I urge you > to lead the process of doing so. I was actually thinking of suggesting XQuery for exactly this purpose in my previous post, but then I remembered what my feelings for it are ... In my opinion they have obfuscated XPath. Instead of describing the XQuery language as an extended subset of XSLT/XPath they went inventing their own syntax and semantics which are similar but not compatible with XSLT/XPath. I cannot se any sensible reason for this at all but that's a different story. > IMO the process of creating common extension functions will become > easier when we have a means of defining extension functions in XSLT > (and [sorry Uche] in other languages). Implementers that have the time > to build in support for these common extensions will be able to do so. > We will be able to use our own definitions for those that don't. I fully agree. > > Expr := VarBinding* OrExpr > > VarBinding := QName ':=' Expr ';' > :) You might be interested at looking at the syntax used in XQuery. Well, I did, that's where the ':=' came from, but see my previous comment on XQuery :-) Cheers, </David> David Rosenborg Pantor Engineering AB XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|