Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 010310 From: "Dave Hartnoll" <themainman@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:59:22 -0000 |
A minor glitch: Appendix B of the Math and Sets documents incorrectly refers to the Common document for a description of exsl:function. Dave Hartnoll. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeni Tennison" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 010310 > Hi, > > There are new drafts of the EXSLT 1.0 documents available. The > changes are as follows: > > EXSLT 1.0 - Common > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/common/ > > Changes: > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > > EXSLT 1.0 - Sets > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/sets/ > > Changes: > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > * Removed arguments that require dynamic evaluation. > * Changed the name of set:following to set:trailing. > * Changed the second argument for set:leading and set:trailing to a > node set and revised functionality. > * Removed set:exists and set:forall as they are fairly pointless > without dynamic evaluation. > > EXSLT 1.0 - Math > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/math/ > > Changes: > * Changed the prefix used in this document from 'num' to 'math'. > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > * Removed arguments that require dynamic evaluation. > * Removed math:sum function as without dynamic evaluation, this is > already supported in XSLT. > * Changed wording on math:max, math:min, math:highest and > math:lowest to indicate that the node values are converted to > numbers as with the number function. > > EXSLT 1.0 - Functions > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/functions/ > > Changes: > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > * Removed example functions that involve dynamic evaluation of > strings. > * Altered example implementations to reflect changes to EXSLT 1.0 - > Sets and EXSLT 1.0 - Math. > > > The biggest alteration is that I've taken out any dynamic evaluation > in these drafts. If anyone has objections to that change, let me know. > > If there aren't any objections, and no one has any further functions > to add to Common, Math or Sets, then I'd like to finalise these so > that implementers feel better about implementing them. Of course more > functions can be added in the future, but this is the basic set. > > There are still lots of issues left on how to define functions, most > of which are fairly fundamental - should EXSLT follow the FXPath > methods of defining functions? Should you be allowed to gradually > build up node sets with multiple exsl:result elements (or something > similar)? I think that just about everyone who has an opinion has > said their piece, and I think that the current state roughly reflects > the consensus, but I may be wrong. If there aren't objections to the > current state, then I'd like to finalise it as is. > > Finally - are there any other functions or sets of functions that > should be added to EXSLT 1.0? What extension functions do you find > useful? Are there any extension elements that should be added? > > Cheers, > > Jeni > --- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com/ > > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 01031, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 0, Dave Hartnoll |
RE: [xsl] Re:, Chris Bayes | Date | Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 0, Dave Hartnoll |
Month |