This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Future XSLT expansion.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
> If XSLT 1.0 had wanted to allow this usage (and I am not sure why it
> didn't) then it is fairly clear that it would not have been done by
> putting node-set()function into the core, but rather just by not having
> the concept of result tree fragment at all, (as in the current microsoft
> implementation).
Such a view solves one particular problem with variables but still
requires extensions which are generating node-sets to be
vendor-specific ( each vendor has his own vendor-specific
node-set datatype)
Having node-set typecast in the core allows writing
XSLT-vendor-independent extensions.
The borders between variable, document, and text are
mythical.
If typecast could not be done - throw the exception. Forbidding
typecast in principle is not a solution. It is a limitation.
Another 'workaround' could be that all XSLT vendors will agree
on common format of node-set ( looks impossible to me ).
Rgds.Paul.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list