This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: Re: FXPath - A comment on EXSL
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: FXPath - A comment on EXSL
- From: DPawson at rnib dot org dot uk
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:18:05 -0000
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> From: David Rosenborg [mailto:david.rosenborg@pantor.com]
> Sent: 28 February 2001 14:45
> 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?
Regards DaveP
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list