Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:31:31 GMT |
> Also, the difficulties - as the thread has shown - appear to be > eminently surmountable, surmountable, certainly. Whether that is doable in what I would have guessed was the original timeframe for a 1.1 release is not so clear. For exslt:* one can be more experimental (for staters, one could just inherit the saxon:* versions) but if such a feature were to be added officially to the language it isn't clear we've yet seen a really stable suggestion. (Of course it's turned out that xsl:script as spec'd hasn't been universally acclaimed either but that was in many ways a much easier thing, just merging the features of the java bindings of the current systems, and the msxml script element, and adding a useful indirection that meant the namespace URI used for the extension function wasn't directly pointing at a java implementation of the function) As for what functions to stick in exslt I'd have a policy of if in doubt add it. So in particular I'd probably start by suggesting all the saxon ones. (Thus including saxon:function) This just gives a namespace that isn't saxon specific that means that other implementers can choose to implement these functions if they wish. Similiarly of course they could suggest further functions to be added. 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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Francis Norton | Thread | Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Francis Norton |
[xsl] Re: implements-prefix vs impl, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | RE: [xsl] How to use <a style="{fon, Kevin Duffey |
Month |