David Tolpin on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:51:09 +0400 (AMT))
This means that elimination of node-set
means impact on performance,
and this is a partial quote, the words omitted were that it is not
the worst thing; the worst thing is that it means
loss of predictability of performance.
Whether the absence of RTF type in XSLT impacts on performance
presumably depends on what you were doing to get round the restriction
in XSLT1.
I am not discussing XSLT 1.0. There is no way to build node-set in XSLT 1.0.
XSLT 1.0 + *:node-set, however, provides a clean way to get a node-set
where it is needed. XSLT 2.0 insist on building addressable node-set even
when it is not. The practice provides evidence that implementation of
efficient node-set is difficult.
As I don't really like using extension elements (even x:node-set()) for
portability reasons, I routinely go
The question is not whether to have a way to build a node-set or not,
but whether to have an explicit way to build a node-set, or to do it
always when an RTF is needed.
For portability reasons it is often makes sense to just provide a chain
of stylesheets wrapped by an external glue, such as Bourne shell, perl
or whatever else is available. There is more than one tool.
David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list