On 4/30/05, Wendell Piez <wapiez(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
Karl,
I think you may be misinterpreting what Dimitre said. At any rate, I took
"should have a solution without using it" to mean "will also be solvable
without it". No warrant is given as to whether that solution is "good" in
any sense -- it could be very long, or require heaps of time and memory to
run.
I don't believe Dimitre intended to imply that because you always have an
alternative, you should not use xxx:node-set(). There is a set of cases for
which the alternative you have may be theoretically possible, but
prohibitively difficult in practice.
Thank you, Wendell, this is correct.
For example, FXSL for XSLT 1.0 uses heavily the exslt:node-set()
extension function -- the only extension function used in FXSL.
In fact, this made me implement a subset of EXSLT(of course containing
the node-set() extension) for MSXML4 two years ago.
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>
--~--