xslt specification comment

["Smith, Brian BC SSI" <BS185791@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the specification it says:

NOTE: the XSL WG intends to define such a mechanism in a future
version of this specification or in a separate specification."  

Referring to implementation hooks for extension functions.


Extension functions are very useful.    I know that there are
many items on the plate of the committee, but please try to get a standard
for the implementation bindings.  

I have used the extension functions in both XT and SAXON
and come to the conclusion that I can  not use them for now
because there is standard way to define the bindings of
the extension functions into the parser.   My preference is
something that does not require a specified base class.  I 
like the kludge that XT does...if this could be cleaned up...


Brian Smith
Shell Services International


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list