[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XSL - Documentation
> If you pretended that the C function documented above was a > XSLT function and invented some simplified syntax on the fly > (as I'm about to do), you'd end up with something like: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > <x:doc xmlns:x="http://example.org/documentation"> > $res:: Result tree. > $fo_doc:: #FoDoc to which to write output. > $fo_tree:: Pointer to generated FO tree. > $area_tree:: Pointer to generated area tree. > $continue_after_error:: Whether to continue after a formatting error. > $debug_level:: What debugging output to generate. > $error:: Indication of any error that occurred. > > Generates FO and area trees from $res result tree. > </x:doc> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > which is a lot easier to write, read, and update than putting > DocBook or DITA into the stylesheet and is still sufficiently > structured that, with some XSLT munging this time, you can > get from there to DocBook or DITA and from thence to HTML or > to whatever. But do we want users to have to learn yet another markup language? It seems to me that the obvious place to document a function parameter is an extension attribute on the xsl:param element: <xsl:param name="fo_tree" x:doc="Pointer to generated FO tree"/> Regards, Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
|
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
|