Re: XSLT result tree fragment, with XSLT 3.0 and xsl:

"Michael Kay michaelkay90@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> Why the WG felt it necessary to impose these restrictions has always
> eluded me.

I think itbs easy to forget the relatively narrow design goal of XSL
1.0: transform an XML document into another vocabulary styled for
presentation (HTML or XSL Formatting Objects). Basically, DSSSL with
angle brackets.

I donbt have a clear recollection, or notes to back it up, but the
ability to process node sets produced by other template rules wasnbt in
the early designs. By the time it became obvious that it would be
useful, the WG was quite possibly in the bwe need to finish 1.0b mind
set. I wouldnbt be surprised if almost-thirty-years-ago working group
said blook, we donbt need to be able to process node sets for our use
cases and it would potentially make implementations harder, so letbs
not.b

I have written many, many (many!) transformations that did not process
result tree fragments. Itbs hugely useful and XSLT wouldnbt be as useful
without it, but leaving it out of 1.0 wasnbt an obviously (to everyone
present) bad thing.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@xxxxxxxxxx>
https://norm.tovey-walsh.com/

> 'Heartless Cynics,' the young men shout, / Blind to the world of Fact
> without; / 'Silly Dreamers,' the old men grin / Deaf to the world of
> Purpose within.--W. H. Auden

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]