Re: [xsl] thanks, also thoughts on xsl:script and xsl:function

[Jeni Tennison <mail at jenitennison dot com>]

Hi Dave,

> Re: <xsl:script>, I've done some more thinking about this, and have
> come around to the view that having a common binding per language is
> better than not having one. I would prefer not to see other
> languages inlined within XSLT source -- I take it that there must be
> a substantial user base that needs to have everything packages in
> one file instead of (for example) one per language? Support for an
> <xsl:binding>, without inline scripting, is about as far as I have
> swung so far.

Thinking about client-side processing, I also wonder whether it
wouldn't be more efficient for the xsl:script elements to point to the
sources and let the processor decide which one(s) to download, given
the languages that that processor supports, rather than always
shipping the scripts in all those languages all over the place.

> Finally, wouldn't it be useful for <xsl:function> to return multiple
> items? (Though I guess it would have to be called <xsl:relation>
> instead! :-) Sure, it is possible to encapsulate multiple values
> into a single one to get around this, just as it is in many other
> languages, but why create the need to?

Actually I think it's pretty hard to encapsulate multiple values into
a single one in XSLT - how would you return a string, a number and a
node set without turning them all into an RTF? Unfortunately, I think
that supporting the return of multiple values either way would mean
extensions to XPath.  Perhaps it's something worth lobbying for for
XPath 2.0.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/



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