Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:19:48 -0700 |
> > Now you're talking. > > > > Is it not worth trying out this approach for a while before > > diving in with the > > XSLT 1.1 stuff? > > > It's completely orthogonal. Not a bit. > This is about accelerating the creation of > agreed specifications for new extension functions; the XSLT 1.1 proposals > are about increasing the portability of extension function implementations. I get the idea we're talking different languages. And why, pray tell, could the existing extension functions not be modified to use the new mechanism? I have no problem renaming my ft:evaluate to std:evaluate. I can't imagine why you wouldn't. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji | Date | Re: [xsl] for-each question, cutlass |
Month |