This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: FXPath - A comment on EXSL
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: [xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXSL
- From: "David Rosenborg" <david dot rosenborg at pantor dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:58:06 +0100
- References: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F4F030B@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Hi Dave,
> > Yes, and I think user defined extension functions sits almost
> > right in the middle of
> > the two. I think that's why we can find sensible arguments
> > for choosing
> > either syntax for this purpose. However, as you know, I think most
> > of the extension functions will deal with XPath types and should
> > therefore be implemented in an XPath fashion.
> Simple question just on this one. Would a resultant stylesheet using
> this form still be a valid XML document, as per today?
I'm not sure I understand your question fully, but both the EXSL
and FXPath approaches will yeild stylesheets that are valid
XML and even conforming to XSLT 1.0. Though I don't
know of any implementations that would be able to
successfully execute them as of today.
Cheers,
</David>
David Rosenborg
Pantor Engineering AB
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list