"Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c0tn59$46c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > The problem is that XSLT is not a true XML language: the XPath literals
> > are not broken up into a tree structure. So in order to transform XSLT
1.0
> > it will be almost essential to delegate the XPath parse to some Java
code.
> >
> > If there was a standard XML tree representation of an XPath, which could
> > come in useful for all sorts of other purposes, the fn:xpath-to-tree()
> > function would return it enabling proper XSLT analyses. The reverse
> > fn:tree-to-xpath() is just a pretty printer.
> >
> > Given fn:xpath-to-tree(), it would be possible to convert XSLT 1.0 to
2.0,
> > and perhaps this conversion should accompany the standard.
>
>
> There would be XQueryX -- the XML-format of XQuery, but unfortunately,
such
> a beast cannot substitute XPath in XSLT because in XSLT any XPath
expression
> must be specified as a value of some attribute.
>
> As we know, attributes can only have simple values -- not an xml document
or
> fragment.


Unless XSLT is changed to support something like this:

<xsl:variable name="myName">
  <select>
   <!-- XQueryX (or any kind of XMLised XPath) here -->
  </select>
</xsl:variable>


>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dimitre Novatchev
> FXSL developer,
>
> http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
> Resume: http://fxsl.sf.net/DNovatchev/Resume/Res.html
>
>
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>




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