namespace for xxx:script (was: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments)

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

I said
> If instead it was a top level element in the XSl namespace that was
> allowed to be ignored, I don't see how you would be worse off,

If there were a standardised namespace for extension elements and
functions, an alternative would be to put xxx:script into that.

<xslx:script xmlns:xslx="...">... whatever

That would mean that it would automatically be ignored by default
according to XSLT 1.0 rules, and would be a stronger indication
to implementors that they needn't support this, in particular they could
still claim "full conformance" to XSLT without doing anything with
this element at all.

David


_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp

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