Oliver, Why support a redundant costruct, when using xsl:choose is already there and is much more cleaner in specifying the scope in which any xsl:when or xsl:otherwise must occur? This is clearly not to occupy space on this list -- I agree. At least for such simple questions, for which anyone can find the answer if they think. Regards, Dimitre. > Dimitre, > > since the W3C doesn't want to add xsl:else, this discussion might be > pointless. However: requiring that xsl:else must always follow > immediately > an xsl:if is IMHO not more complicate than requiring that xsl:param must > always come first within a template. > > Moreover, there is no dangling else here: > > if x then (if y then a else b) > becomes > <xsl:if test="x"> > <xsl:if test="y">a</xsl:if> > <xsl:else>b</xsl:else> > </xsl:if> > > if x then (if y then a) else b > becomes > <xsl:if test="x"> > <xsl:if test="y">a</xsl:if> > </xsl:if> > <xsl:else>b</xsl:else> > > Regards, > Oliver Becker __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 09:36:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:08 GMT