RE: Re: xsl/xslt coding standard

> Yes, some default ns for documentation would help, 
> just looking at the above though, don't you think the primary code
> might get just a little 'buried' in the documentation?

How about just a single <xsl:doc> (3 letters) element that you could
associate with elements by using the xml hierarchy - an <xsl:doc> as a
top level element is for the whole stylesheet, one within a template is
specific to that template etc, so the processor can output accordingly.
Providing whatever processor function is used to produce the
documentation includes template matches/names/modes, parms,
call-templates etc xslt is already so verbose that it should be
enough...

Is there a need for more, at the inbuilt level?


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 15 August 2002 14:23
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:  Re: xsl/xslt coding standard
> 
> 
> Jeni said:
> > Sure. You can also do it with:
> > 
> > <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
> >                 xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
> >                 xmlns:doc="doc:documentation"
> >                 extension-element-prefixes="doc">
> > 
> > <doc:module>Here's some documentation of my stylesheet</doc:module>
> > 
> > <xsl:template match="/">
> >   <doc:template name="templateName" match="whatever">
> >      <doc:descr>And I can use it within templates too!</doc:descr>
> >      <doc:result type="tNode-set">result description</doc:result>
> >      <doc:param name="someName">Param description</doc:param>
> >      <doc:param name="someOtherName">Param description</doc:param>
> >      ...............
> >      <xsl:fallback />
> >   </doc:template>
> >   ...
> > </xsl:template>
> 
> Nice one Jeni! I guess it is treated as per any extension code,
> hence plays no part in the normal output?
> 
> > I don't think it's a massive thing, but since we're getting a new
> > version of XSLT anyway, we might as well fix this to make 
> it simpler.
> 
> Yes, some default ns for documentation would help, 
> just looking at the above though, don't you think the primary code
> might get just a little 'buried' in the documentation?
> I suppose it depends on the relataive sizes, but it is a downside
> to 'full' documentation, as was the case with well commented C code,
> the comments buried the code!
> 
> regards DaveP
> 
> - 
> 
> NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any 
> attachments is 
> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
> intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
> disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
> immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
> system.
> 
> RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
> attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
> cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
> transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
> 
> Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
> and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
> represent those of RNIB.
> 
> RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
> 
> Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 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