[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] Things that make you go Hmmmm!


Subject: Re: [xsl] Things that make you go Hmmmm!
From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:42:12 +0000

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I was surprised that the content models of xsl:copy and xsl:copy-of
>>>> were different (by dint of the select attribute) in the first place.
>>>
>>> They are still different, no? shallow vs deep.
>
> On 28 March 2014 17:50, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what point you are making.
>
> That the content models are still different (not just the select attribute).
>

The only other difference I see is that xsl:copy has a
use-attribute-set attribute and the xsl:copy-of  doesn't.

I'd make them the same.

>> As to my point. For the same reasons I would expect the content models
>> of xsl:next-match, xsl:apply-templates and xsl:apply-imports to be the
>> same.
>
> What would the xsl:sort child of xsl:next-match or xsl:apply-imports do?
>

What does xsl:value-of a null string do? Should I prevent it. (You
must have missed that one yesterday).

In a language that supports functions as first class values what does
f = g mean where f and g are functions. Do I prevent it.

What does xsl:value-of select="$x" where $x is a function do. Do I prevent it.

Why are the arguments to min xs:anyAtomicType which means it can be
applied to a type that does not have a well defined collation sequence
e.g functions again. Why doesn't the language prevent that.

What is the advantage  of restricting a language constructs content
model to the use-cases you can foresee today. What is the disadvantage
of doing that?

>
> xsl:apply-templates is how you construct the list of nodes to process,
> while xsl:next-match and xsl:apply-imports help decide which template
> is actually applied for any given node... so they are different
> things.
>

That debate has occurred before.

http://www.stylusstudio.com/xsllist/201305/post20050.html


Current Thread