Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: "Steve Muench" <Steve.Muench@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:07:01 -0800 |
Jenny, | But I have faith that if | we come up with a well-thought-out proposal then at least some | implementers will come on board. Would it be useful to take Michael Kay's "spec" for <saxon:function> as a strawman proposal to start with: http://users.iclway.co.uk/mhkay/saxon/saxon6.2/extensions.html#saxon:function I think clearly separating the specification of the abilities: -> to statically define and statically invoke functions in XSLT, and -> to dynamically invoke functions would be useful. Some implementors may be interested in the former, but not the latter, or vice versa. ______________________________________________________________ Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Common Extension Process (was, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison |
[xsl] Rick Jelliffe's comment on XP, Miloslav Nic | Date | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison |
Month |