Re: [xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...)

Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...)
From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:33:19 +0000
Hi Dimitre,

>> To avoid confusion and argument, let's call it "XSLT with EXSL
>> extensions". My question was whether Kevin objected to extension
>> functions in any language (e.g. Java, Perl) or only to extension
>> functions in "XSLT with EXSL extensions".
> Confusion will be avoided -- no confusion would exist there in the
> first place in case "XSLT" was not in the name. So, why just don't
> remove "XSLT" from the name?

I think we're talking at cross purposes about what we're naming here.

I was talking about the language used to define a function - when you
define a function in the scheme that I put together in the draft
document, then the content of exsl:function doesn't *just* include
extension elements. The language that is used to define the function
involves XSLT elements like xsl:variable as well as extension elements
like exsl:function and exsl:return. So the language that the function
is defined in can be said to be 'XSLT with EXSL extensions'.

I now think that you're talking about a name for the EXSL extensions
as a set of extension elements.  I was just calling those EXSL
extensions in my head.  Perhaps it would be better to call it simply
EXSLT 1.0?

So the draft contains the definition/description of EXSLT 1.0.  The
language used to define the functions is a combination of XSLT 1.0 and
EXSLT 1.0.

Is that the kind of thing you were after?

> Did anyone of the implementors call the set of their extension
> functions like this (e.g. "XSLT with Saxon extensions")?

No, but likewise I wouldn't say that my stylesheet that uses Saxon
extensions was written "in Saxon".  I'd say it was written in XSLT
with Saxon extensions.



Jeni Tennison

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread