Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math

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.



Jeni Tennison

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread