Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:44:08 GMT
> You can be sure that some of my views are off-base (just ask David
> Carlisle)

Hey I was keeping out of this thread:-)

Although actually I'm inclined to agree with some of your concerns
about too much java dependency.

Although xsl:script itself doesn't seem particularly oriented to java
it looks pretty much a clone of msxsl:script interface to javascript
(or other scripting languages available on that platform)

As for a common namespace for extensions........

Date: 6 Nov 1999 13:35:18 +0000
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: vendor neutral XSL extension namespace ?

Assuming xslt is about to become a recommendation...
XSLT is hopefully about to become stable for a while
there will I suppose be a gap before the next W3C recommended
version 1.x or 2 or whatever.

However there are some useful extensions being implemented,
xt's document element to allow multiple output files, the result tree
to node set conversions, Saxon's grouping constructs,... 

Would it be possible for XSL implementors to agree on a common extension
namespace for some of these (that is explicitly an _experimental_
extension and does not imply later acceptance by W3C)

It is unfortunate if stylesheets that could work unchanged on
different implementations fail to do so just because of namespace
differences in otherwise identical extensions.

If such an agreement could be made it would be useful I think.
(Perhaps the kind folks at Mulberry could offer a namespace uri
related to the archives for this list?)


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread