> > > I think there is some confusion here.
> > 
> > Well, I'm not confused, are you? ;-)
> 
> I said neither "I'm confused" nor "you're confused".  I said "there is some 
> confusion here".  The three mean distinct things.

Well, now I'm confused :-)

> Yes, but not legal XPath 1.0, which would mean that all implementors would 
> have to retrofit not just extensions, but their XPath implementation cores 
> with entirely speculative syntax.

I've never claimed it to be XPath 1.0. In XSLT 1.0 you would allow the
extended XPath only in the select attribute of exsl:result

> Why would anyone go this byzantine route when they can just allow XSLT 
control 
> structures?

I think the answer lies in the comments you snipped out: 
In my opinion it is much cleaner and simpler to implement
some add-ons to XPath (yes, they are by definition speculative!)
that would only be used in exsl:result/@select than
(equally speculaitve) intrusively changing or even rewriting the
execution model for template instructions.

Cheers,

</David>

David Rosenborg
Pantor Engineering AB


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