This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche dot ogbuji at fourthought dot com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:19:48 -0700
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> > Now you're talking.
> >
> > Is it not worth trying out this approach for a while before
> > diving in with the
> > XSLT 1.1 stuff?
> >
> It's completely orthogonal.
Not a bit.
> This is about accelerating the creation of
> agreed specifications for new extension functions; the XSLT 1.1 proposals
> are about increasing the portability of extension function implementations.
I get the idea we're talking different languages.
And why, pray tell, could the existing extension functions not be modified to
use the new mechanism? I have no problem renaming my ft:evaluate to
std:evaluate. I can't imagine why you wouldn't.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +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