Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:42:21 +0000 |
Hi David, > why would that be so bad? The number of strings matching the QName > production that are no longer than "foobangwhizz-3args" is "quite > large" So there's plenty of scope for thinking up good new names. Generally people want to use names for functions that are meaningful and in their own language. That tends to restrict things just a little more. (And we're talking about NCNames, not QNames.) > I don't think it will do any good though, in the real world it'll be > 6 months not 6 weeks before implementor B gets round to thinking > about implementing recent additions to the common namespace, and > notices that things could have been different. I do have a tendency for over optimism, especially where people are concerned. I'll bow to the voice of experience. I do think that it would be helpful, for both implementers and users, to keep a record of which implementations have built-in support for each function, so that when two functions offer the same kind of functionality it's possible to see which of them is more portable. 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, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Uche Ogbuji |
Re: [xsl] Transformation Problem (w, Jeni Tennison | Date | [xsl] RE: MSXML ancestor-or-self, Michael Kay |
Month |