"Rushforth, Peter" wrote:
Hi
I'm curious as to why saxon:serialize and saxon:parse are required
for the <body> element?
Should the extension function not be able to avoid their use by
serializing/parsing the request/response internally without the
need for the other extensions?
This extension is aimed to provide HTTP features. And HTTP is not
restricted to XML, it sends and receives text.
I am convinced that simple, general features can be very useful
(especially for extensions). Besides the extension, you can then write
a regular XSLT function that take a document in input and return a
document as output, handling the serializing and parsing itself.
But that's a good point, because while serializing in XSLT is easy,
parsing requires much an extension. So I guess it could be interesting
to provide an alternative extension function that handles the parsing
(at least).
I have a new version to upload (to deal with proxies with
authentication), and I want to write new, simpler examples. Then I
would like to improve the interface, and write a stylesheet that build
upon the HTTP extension to provide SOAP functions.
The use of the the same variable name for global and local had me
confused for a moment - but as you say you are updating the
examples.
Good catch! I will change that.
Thanks for the feedback. Regards,
--drkm
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--