Re: Re: xsl:function

> It's already okay to have five <xsl:param> statements upon entry, so I
> figure: why should five <xsl:result> statements be such a big deal?  A hacky
> suggestion: an RTF could be constructed, where the results would be
> (ordered) immediate children of the root.  This wouldn't be necessaru if
> tuples existed in the language.  Most annoyingly, the case where one value
> is being returned isn't very elegant.  I'm not sure if it's possible to
> seriously suggest returning each result without a parent node connecting
> them (like an XML fragment).

I agree, but I think it should be handled generally: XSLT 1.1/2.0 should have 
list types (prefereably heterogenous).  Of course not even the desire to 
experiment with this could warm me to the "external object" business in the 
XSLT 1.1 WD.

Now back to denouncing execrences...


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



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