Subject: Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template
From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:43:45 -0500 (EST)
|
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> <xsl:template name="foo">
> <bar>
> <xsl:return select="'bar'" />
> </bar>
> </xsl:template>
I must say that I really do not like the "return" idea.
The output of the template is the result-fragment it
generates. If one wanted to call templates from XPath,
then, one could have the result-fragment returned as a node-set.
Simple. All of this "return" stuff gives me a headache,
why is it necessary? If a <xsl:return> is necessary (evidence
please), then I vote for Kay's <xsl:function>. The *worst*
case is having both an output fragment _and_ a return statement.
This combination makes no sense whatsoever.
Best,
Clark
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
Cart
