Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...) From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:42:46 +0000 |
Hi Kevin, >>I see the route being: >> >> user-defined extension functions (in XSLT or other languages) -> >> community standardisation -> >> W3C standardisation > > I guess we differ here. It not clear to me that the first step is > required although XSLT based user-defined extensions would at least > be portable if it is. I don't think we have a strong enough case > either way but it looks like an expensive option to assume we do > need user-defined functions. That's fair enough. I can't say that I've ever used user-defined extension functions much (and those that I have have tended to be for things that I couldn't do in XSLT anyway). But then I didn't use the node-set() extension function until RTFs were taken out of XSLT 1.1, and boy has it made my life easier now that I can! That's why I'm really interested in hearing from people who *do* use saxon:function about why they use it. Mind you, it will always be the case that any particular use case for having user-defined extension functions can be met by the "let's make it a community standard" argument. And a built-in extension will always win over a user-defined one in terms of efficiency, ease of implementation and complexity. On the other hand, the user-defined extension wins in terms of process and portability. It is always going to be a lot simpler for an author to create the function they want rather than put it forward to the community to discuss, have it bundled together with various other functions to make a new version of the community standard extension functions, and wait for that to be implemented in the new version of the implementation they use. Similarly, it is going to be easier in the long run for an implementer to have a generic way of adding extension functions than to implement every extension function that comes along. I think that Mike Kay noted that the Saxon extension functions are all implemented as if they were user-defined extension functions. It's also worth noting that the cat is out of the bag already - almost every XSLT processor already offers some way of adding user-defined extensions, whether through a special element or through namespace resolution. All EXSLT is doing is standardising a way of doing this using XSLT (+ EXSLT). Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - ca, Kevin Jones | Thread | Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call f, Francis Norton |
Re: [xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 , Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 , cutlass |
Month |