Re: vendor neutral XSL extension namespace ?

[James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> I would suggest that there arguing about the different extensions is
> probably not the best way to proceed. I say put everything anyone comes
> up with in one namespace and let individual software developers choose
> which to suggest.
> 
> In other words the goal should not be to make XSL 2 "on the side." It
> should be to establish a common namespace for experimentation so that
> multiple vendors can implement the same experiment without needing to
> use someone else's namespace.
> 
> I think that all we need are
> 
>  a) a registry
>  b) name clash management

I think this is much more along the right lines, but it's not clear to
me how name clashes would be managed. Suppose one vendor wants a "group"
extension element that works a bit like xsl:for-each, and another vendor
wants a "group" extension element that works a bit like xsl:sort.  Or
suppose one vendor wants an "intersection" extension function that
accepts 2 arguments, and another vendor wants an "intersection"
extension function that accepts an arbitrary number of arguments.

James


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list