Dimitre,
I'm not disagreeing with your position. I have had some fundamental
objections to the introduction of data-typing within XSLT almost from
the moment that it first appeared in the specifications. I've worked
with XSLT often enough to state that the number of times I can point
to where static typing would have come in handy can be counted on one
hand, and usually there was some work-around there. I see the type
mechanisms as a big step backwards, but one that is unfortunately
driven by a few vendors (principally Microsoft) who are convinced
that dynamic typing is bad and dangerous. I can think of a few cases
where I would agree, but many more where dynamic typing is far
preferable to dealing with static type.
As to the function mapping, I'm a little more ambivalent. The example
I gave there was pedagogical in nature, meant to illustrate the
principle. I do believe, however, that the principle advantage that
there are two principle advantages of the <xsl:function> element:
1) It makes it easier to develop a consistent set of libraries that
can be utilized repeatedly. You may end up using this function only
once in a given stylesheet, but if you use the same function imported
into multiple stylesheets then you've significantly reduced your
overhead.
2) It makes it possible to create class-like architectures within
well
defined namespaces, a definite plus as I see it in creating a
comprehensive framework for development. For instance, you can define
a matrix namespace:
[Nice examples skipped]
Kurt,
We agree on everything said. My comments were addressing the specific
example, I am fully aware of the benefits of xsl:function and grouping
related functions into modules.
=====
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list