<function>return</function> is how it's done, just like
<function>include</function>, <function>print</function>, etc.
Yet, return is not a function, unlike include or print.
<literal> could get a link to the anchor in the doc to return.
same would apply to continue and break, while, for.....
That is more consistent.
What do you think?
We can easily make <literal>return</literal> to point to the return functions docs in XSLT, it's quite easy. But I don't know if someone would do that for DSSSL and still <literal> is not meant for language keywords. So if you would like to find something better then <function> I would not support <literal>. There is probably some other tag more suitable here...
I tried to look up some more appropriate tag here for return and the like, but was unable to find one. Literals definitions is: "A Literal is some specific piece of data, taken literally, from a computer system. It is similar in some ways to UserInput and ComputerOutput, but is somewhat more of a general classification. The sorts of things that constitute literals varies by domain." This does not fit things like return. A language keyword is not a <literal> IMHO, it is more a <function>, especially if it looks like a function, and can be used like a function.
Goba