Extensible SL

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I realize that it's an odd (some might even say 'dumb') question, but:

How is 'Extensible' Style Language extensible?

I'm aware that section 14 of the XSLT draft covers extension elements and
extension functions, but they seem to be given grudgingly, with large
warnings in the introduction.

It doesn't seem that extensibility is a core philosophical value of the
process that has given us XSLT and XSL itself - rather, the determining
factors appear to be the use of XML and the model of transforming a source
tree into a result tree (of formatting objects or not.)

I doubt that there's much point in renaming XSL at this point, or that
major changes to its architecture are likely, but it does seem oddly
misnamed, to say the least.  XLink, XPointer, and XPath all appear to have
avoided this issue - their initial Xs appear to stand only for XML.

I guess a more interesting question might ask what a genuinely 'extensible'
style language might in fact look like and how that extensibility might be
provided.

Or maybe I've just had too much coffee.


Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer (2nd Ed - September)
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com


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