[xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...)

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeni,

--- Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dimitre,
> 
> >>> I think that writing extension functions in XSLT appears initially
> >>> very attractive (as apposed to Java, etc) but in very attractive
> >>> (as apposed to Java, etc) but in the bigger scheme of things it
> >>> appears to me to be a short term hack that will significantly add
> >>> to the complexity of XSLT without improving the language.
> >> 
> >> Just to make it clear - are you opposed only to XSLT as the
> >> extension language, or to any language?
> >
> > Just to make it clear -- why should the ***new language*** 
> > described in the draft -- be called XSLT?
> 
> Um, well you could say that XSLT includes extension elements - a
> conformant XSLT stylesheet can include them. Or you could say that
> XSLT doesn't because extension elements are (by definition) extensions
> to XSLT.
> 
> To avoid confusion and argument, let's call it "XSLT with EXSL
> extensions". My question was whether Kevin objected to extension
> functions in any language (e.g. Java, Perl) or only to extension
> functions in "XSLT with EXSL extensions".
> 

Confusion will be avoided -- no confusion would exist there in the first place in case "XSLT" was
not in the name. So, why just don't remove "XSLT" from the name?

Did anyone of the implementors call the set of their extension functions like this 
(e.g. "XSLT with Saxon extensions")?

Cheers,
Dimitre.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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