"G. Ken Holman" wrote:
 
> I've come across a situation where I'd like to supply to the macro a
> fragment of the result tree as the value of an argument

I think this is something XSL ought to provide. At the moment macros in
effect have

a) any number of named arguments of type string; these are passed with
xsl:arg and accessed with arg() expressions

b) one anonymous argument of type "result tree fragment"; this is passed
as the content of xsl:invoke, and accessed via xsl:contents

This doesn't seem quite right...

James



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list