On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:23 PM, David Carlisle
<davidc(_at_)nag(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Upgrading from 1 to 2 (and soon from 2 to 3) was largely painless
precisely because the vast majority of code just worked. If XSLT3
had purely cosmetic function name changes it would be massively disruptive.
Really sounds very easily automated to adjust function names in code.
I admit I didn't have to go through an upgrade process. I just started
writing xslt 2 templates and left my xslt 1.0 templates as they were.
Urm... no. Not unless we can get text nodes renamed in XML. It really
is a text node.
I guess the only point of confusion was the number of text nodes returned
deep-text() or all-text-nodes(), something like that might have made
things more clear. Actually to be honest I don't care much about that.
It should though be easier to change things in a language if they are
really a source for misunderstanding from my viewpoint. Changing
something like a name moving from one version to another can't be that
problematic.
--
-
Alex Muir
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/alex-muir/36/ab7/125
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--