Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:54:57 +0000 |
Steve Muench wrote: > > | I also like the idea expressed here of implementing extension > | functions in XSLT. > > So do I. See Michael Kay's <saxon:function> extension > element for one idea of the shape that extension functions > in XSLT might take. > <saxon:function> looks just right, now I've looked it up. Why did I have to look it up, when I develop using instant saxon anyway? Because we deliver with MSXML3 so I don't bother investigating any of Mike's well-reputed extension functions. Just to open this up a bit, I haven't heard any arguments *against* implementing XSLT extension functions in XSLT, so I'll put up a couple myself. [1] we don't have enough experience to know the best way of doing this [2] it would encourage bad coding practice [3] for maximum benefit to XSLT developers it should be a mandatory feature, but this would impose an unacceptable burden on XSLT implementors. None of them look too plausible to me - I have to admit I haven't done much research on this, but the absence of problems on this list with <saxon:function> suggest that it should be, at minimum, pretty adequate. I don't think any bad coding style triggered by this feature woud be half as vicious as the consequences of herding developers into non-XSLT extensions. And I'm just hoping and guessing - again without research - that implementing this feature is largely syntax-sugar - and if not, let's make it optional. Can anyone who knows tell me if I'm right or wrong? Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench | Thread | XSLT Functions in XSLT (Was: Re: [x, Steve Muench |
Re: [xsl] treeViewer, Mike Brown | Date | Re: [xsl] Merging two files, Oliver Becker |
Month |