RE: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: Fu

> I must have missed a part of the discussion -- was there a
> feeling that
> it would be inappropriate to overload xsl:value-of?  When the RTF
> concept is removed, would it not be possible to say that xsl:value-of
> just returns the original node set instead of a copy?  It
> would then be
> possible for templates (or exsl:functions) to return references to the
> original node sets, and xsl:value-of would IMHO be a natural
> choice for this return value issue.

It is very much part of the semantics of xsl:value-of that it converts the
supplied value to a string.

xsl:copy-of would be closer to the mark, but still not quite right, because
that still converts numbers and booleans to strings.

Mike Kay


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