> Hi Mark, > > I apologize again for forgetting about this _again_. I wanted to > make some > changes so that it can be more flexible than it is, and also, I can't > really see the utility in having a dynamic result tree fragment > option when > node-sets are more powerful. Do you agree? Would it be OK if I tried to > re-write your patch so we no longer support RTFs? The other enhancement I > wanted to make is to allow for creating node-sets that contain > things other > than just a document node. > Yes, that's fine. It sounds very sensible. I'm pretty sure that the only reason that it supports RTFs is because you asked me to put that in though :)
> One problem is that I am travelling for most of this month, and will have > many interrupts. If your patch can be applied pretty cleanly, I may have > time to work it in when I can. > It might have bitrot, so I'll do another one against CVS (won't be until Monday or Tuesday) and send that along. Mark
