This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: Wishes for XSL revisions ...
- From: Jonathan Yue <jonathan at infonox dot com>
- To: "'xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:15:44 -0800
- Subject: RE: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
I agree "Go all the way" for a programming language. XSL even does not
have a "break" statement. For a simple thing, using XSL has to write
piles of piles of code.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 6:59 PM
To: xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
Subject: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...
Dear XSL designers/maintainers, please scrutinize your
specification for orthogonality or lack thereof. I think
you have put in too many special limitations. Here is a
list of some:
- result tree fragment is not a node set, requiring the node
set function that just about anyone supplies but which
produces only hassles figuring out what namespace this
node-set function is in.
- call-template has no mode attribute
- Why should it be forbidden to construct the name of a template
to call?
- Why should it be forbidden to construct the mode
argument?
- Why should any qname have to be hard-coded?
This only forces awkward choice forms onto the style sheet
programmer where things could be done soo much simpler!
I will probably have more of those as I go. If you make XSL
a functional language, why don't you go all the way?
regards
-Gunther
--
Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow@regenstrief.org
Medical Information Scientist Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
Adjunct Assistant Professor Indiana University School of Medicine
tel:1(317)630-7960 http://aurora.regenstrief.org
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list