Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:15:34 -0700 |
> Hi, > > I think that the discussions that we're having are very useful in > throwing up the issues involved in authoring extension functions in > XSLT. > > However, I'm concerned that we're losing focus a little and would like > to explicitly state a few assumptions that I think we should be > working under. As always, if you disagree with these assumptions or > if you would like others to be added, then do pipe up. > > 1. There are three sets of extensions that we could be talking about: > > (a) extensions to XSLT 1.0 > (b) extensions to XSLT 1.1 > (c) extensions to XSLT 2.0 > > I think that we should be addressing (a) and (b) and not even thinking > about XSLT 2.0 as yet. In fact, I think we should address (a) now, > (b) immediately after we've done that and (c) at some far distant time > when we've all recovered a bit and it's a little clearer what XSLT 2.0 > and XPath 2.0 are going to look like. Strongly agreed. > So, let's limit ourselves (for now) to extensions to XSLT 1.0. This > is a bit of a change 'cos I was talking about xsl:script before, but I > think it will simplify some of the discussion. Excellent. Simplification is good. > 2. I'm persuaded by Steve's observation that static invocation is very > different from dynamic invocation and that dynamic invocation is > something that could be applied to functions (and indeed XPaths) > across the board. I think that we should focus the discussion now on > static invocation, and address dynamic invocation once we've got that > out of the way. Well, as I responded to Steve, I don't see the harm in having both conversations in parallel. As we discuss common XSLT extensions do we *have* to do so serially? Maybe it's enough to just discuss the matters in separate threads. But I don't necessarily think one must precede the other. > So, the order I'm suggesting to focus discussions is: > > 1. how to define extension functions in XSLT 1.0 > 2. how to statically invoke extension functions in XSLT 1.0 > 3. how to dynamically invoke extension functions (+ other things?) in > XSLT 1.0 > 4. how to define extension functions in XSLT 1.1 > > I'll summarise the proposals and design questions that have come out > so far for 1. in one of my following emails. It looks as if you've pretty much taken up the gavel in this discussion. Good. No better moderator. I still think we should find a way to mark the conversation. I, for one, am not often able to follow the huge volume of this list. If we all agree on a common subject line marking or set up another list, I suspect we can draw other implementors in the same boat. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison |
Re: [xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT func, Uche Ogbuji | Date | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |