On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Colin Adams
<colinpauladams(_at_)googlemail(_dot_)com> wrote:
2008/11/19 Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
Another way to do the same, without worrying about implementation
specifics is to enclose the transformation into an <xsl:variable/>
(which means that nothing is to be done with this variable).
As this variable will capture the results of the transformation, no
output will be produced.
And perhaps no transformation either, if the processor optimizes it away.
This has been discussed in the past, and perhaps more than once:
If we have any function theFunc() (an extension function, or a
function in a separately-compiled module, which I hope will be
possible in XSLT 2.1), let's say of type xs:string* then the processor
will evaluate theFunc() in an expression as the following:
<xsl:value-of select="theFunc()"/>
theFunc() will have a global variable that wraps all transformation.
theFunc() will return nothing.
So, this is one implementation-independent way of performing a
transformation and not producing any output.
--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--