RE: [xsl] Wishes for XSL revisions ...

[Jonathan Yue <jonathan at infonox 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