On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:11:19 +0100, Bryan Rasmussen <bry(_at_)itnisk(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Quoting Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
2. have these constructs caused you to decrease usage of particular syntax
from
1.0 in favor of the new syntax
Yes, I do not use xsl:call-template
i suppose you are using functions in its place.
Yes.
3. has anyone observed the new ability of being able to increase the logic
of
xpath statements has led to a significant decrease in usage of any xslt
syntax.
Probably the combined use of xsl:choose inside of an xsl:variable
is quite less now.
i supposed that also if and for-each would be decreased.
An isolated xsl:if that wraps the whole contents of an xsl:template is
still pretty good.
I use exclusively f:map() where normally one would use xsl:for-each.
However, sometimes xsl:for-each is the only way to achieve a specific
result -- e.g. printing a sequence of text nodes as opposed to
producing their concatenated contents (this started happening only
with Saxon 8.2B).
As already demonstrated in my recent code, I am increasingly using the
FXSL HOF wrappers of the corresponding "original" XPath F & Os -- such
as:
f:mult() instead of '*'
f:add() instead of '+'
f:mod() instead of mod
f:string-length() instead of string-length()
f:name() instead of name()
. . . . . . . . Put here almost all F & Os (at present
the wrappers for the date-time functions are still not implemented).
etc.
Another recent tendency is to implement HOF functions that behave as
specific xslt instructions -- e.g. the f:xsltSort() function.
In all above text the "f" prefix is bound to the following namespace-uri:
"http://fxsl.sf.net/";
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--