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

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

> I think proposing the whole saxon function set might prove a bit
> indigestible for non-saxon implementors, in terms of pride if nothing
> else. Let's use it as an excellent kick-off spot, but let the exsl list
> be a genuine community proposal.

Yes but I'd like the extension namespace to basically allow suggestions
for new functionality on a more or less first come first served basis.
There shouldn't be any pressure for anyone to implement it all (if it
only contains two functions, there will be pressure, if it contains 2000
probably not). Compare CTAN (or its better known younger sibling, CPAN)
if the name doesn't clash with something there, then it gets added.
(You'd want a bit more moderation for this, but not much).

I don't really care (so much) which functions are in the list. What 
I care about is that if two implementers are implementing the same
function, they should have an _easy_ way to get that function added to
the exslt namespace master list, so they can each implement it in that
namespace and users can use the function without caring which processor
implementation is being used.

> I like Jeni's approach of defining extra functions as extension
> functions,

Up to a point, although if you put a real evaluate() function in the
extension namespace, many of the more hairy tricks could be avoided.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list