Re: Possible conditional construct for discussion

At 11:57 AM 6/22/2006 -0700, Alex Milowski wrote:
>>    <choose>
>>       <input src="#source"/>
>>       <output name="cond.result"/>
>Here's a bit where the prefix notion for output naming could
>be difficult to understand.  So, here the author has constructed
>a name that looks like a step result (e.g. 'cont.result').  To
>be consistent, we'd have to name the choose:
>    <choose name="cond">
>       <input src="#source"/>
>       <output name="result"/>

Ya, I absolutely dislike the constructed name idea. Maybe that's just me,
but I don't like having to understand or explain the concatenation magic.
I know it's not that hard to understand, but simply declaring the name
as I did above seems to be workable. What is to be gained with the
dot notation and concatenated names?

>>I also imagine the possibility of an equivalent to a UNIX 'here' 
>>document, where
>>I can for example write
>>         <input name="boilerplate">
>>                 <P>Here is the XML document that I want to process</P>
>>         </input>
>Yes!  I really want/need the ability to embed an input.  Putting right
>where the input is declared would be really convenient.

And not only for the document that you are processing, but also possibly
for the XSLT script that is intended to be run.

Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 03:24:59 UTC