--- Jeni wrote:
I wrote:
What you *can* do (and what is done for the legacy XPath 1.0
functions that are polymorphic) is have the function accept a very
general type and then have internal tests that determine the
behaviour based on the type of the argument.
Of course if you want polymorphic behaviour with nodes rather than
with atomic values, you're best off using templates rather than
functions.
Last week some people at XMLEurope were asking me if there would be any reason
to use FXSL with
XSLT 2.0.
Jeni has just explained it in a very nice way -- with XSLT 2.0 FXSL will be at
least as important
and necessary as with XSLT 1.0.
It is going also to be faster (using sequences) and more compact (using
xsl:function wrappers).
And, of course, there's some important new functionality coming soon.
=====
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list