On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:23 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Upgrading from 1 to 2 (and soon from 2 to 3) was largely painless
> precisely because the vast majority of code just worked. If XSLT3
> had purely cosmetic function name changes it would be massively disruptive.

Really sounds very easily automated to adjust function names in code.

I admit I didn't have to go through an upgrade process. I just started
writing xslt 2 templates and left my xslt 1.0 templates as they were.


>Urm... no.  Not unless we can get text nodes renamed in XML.  It really
>is a text node.

I guess the only point of confusion was the number of text nodes returned

deep-text() or all-text-nodes(), something like that might have made
things more clear. Actually to be honest I don't care much about that.

It should though be easier to change things in a language if they are
really a source for misunderstanding from my viewpoint. Changing
something like a name moving from one version to another can't be that
problematic.



-- 
-

Alex Muir
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/alex-muir/36/ab7/125