Subject: xslt specification comment From: "Smith, Brian BC SSI" <BS185791@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 07:45:32 -0500 |
In the specification it says: NOTE: the XSL WG intends to define such a mechanism in a future version of this specification or in a separate specification." Referring to implementation hooks for extension functions. Extension functions are very useful. I know that there are many items on the plate of the committee, but please try to get a standard for the implementation bindings. I have used the extension functions in both XT and SAXON and come to the conclusion that I can not use them for now because there is standard way to define the bindings of the extension functions into the parser. My preference is something that does not require a specified base class. I like the kludge that XT does...if this could be cleaned up... Brian Smith Shell Services International XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Problem with FOP, James Tauber | Thread | new XSLT draft's "possible new feat, Wilson, James.W |
Re: Problem with FOP, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | new XSLT draft's "possible new feat, Wilson, James.W |
Month |