Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:42:39 +0000 |
Hi Mike, > I think it might be prudent to take <exsl:function> out of this, or > at least park it in a separate section, on the grounds that > specifying it is causing some difficulty, and it's probably an area > where implementors will want to wait and see what the official > standard comes up with. Which part of which official standard are you referring to? As far as I can gather from comments here and the current WDs, it seems unlikely that XSLT 1.1 will incorporate user-defined functions written in (anything like) XSLT, but that it's slated for XSLT 2.0. That means a long wait for the functionality - it'd be really disappointing if we did have to wait that long, especially if other languages were supported (via xsl:script) before then. Or perhaps you were just referring to xsl:script? I kind of see the two as orthogonal - exsl:function could reside at the top level of the stylesheet (in XSLT 1.0 or XSLT 1.1 implementations) or within xsl:script (in XSLT 1.1 implementations). Putting function definitions in a separate section would give us just exsl:node-set() and exsl:object-type() in EXSLT 1.0 - Common (or perhaps exsl:object-type() should go in EXSLT 1.0 - Functions as it is mainly required for that functionality). I'd like to see something more in EXSLT 1.0 - Common, particularly as EXSLT 1.1 - Common will be completely superfluous as there won't be a need for exsl:node-set(). It might be a good place to define qualified output methods, system properties and so on. Or perhaps some of the *really* common numerical and set functions should be put in there, with only fairly strange stuff (e.g. trig functions) being relegated to the separate parts. > exsl:eval is another area that causes some controversy: I'm a great > enthusiast for it myself, but not everyone shares my views. Some of > the things done in Saxon using higher-order functions such as sum() > and max() are done in XQuery using explicit syntax or an (implicit) > mapping function that maps a node-set to a list of numbers; again, > implementors will want to wait and see which way the wind is blowing > before committing themselves. Yes, my feeling is that we should leave any kind of dynamic evaluation for now, and make the functions as simple as possible. > You don't seem to define a namespace URI for set:* and num:* > functions. Um, I have: http://xmlns.opentechnology.org/xslt-extensions/sets http://xmlns.opentechnology.org/xslt-extensions/math they're defined in: http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/sets/#namespace http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/math/#namespace But I need to get Uche to OK them. 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] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:scrip, Clark C. Evans | Date | Re: [xsl] Cache problem, Michael Beddow |
Month |