Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

| > I think there are two main use cases here - [1] extension functions for
| > general processing, and [2] extensions for communicating with external
| > systems, including the OS.
| 
| Before I get to the rest of your message, I'd like to point out that both 
| layers can be handled in XSLT 1.0 quite handily by communication between XSLT 
| extension library authors *without* muching with the XSLT spec.  For instance, 
| POSIX could be used as the OS access API and extension writers could set upon
| 
| http://xml.org/posix
| 
| or whatever as the namespace URI, and then disseminate extension 
| implementations for different processors.

Uche,

XSLT 1.1 does not prevent this in any way.

The basic rules about a processor's built-in extension
functions do not change.

See the editor's note in Section 14.4 of the XSLT 1.1 working draft:

Ed. Note: Make sure that it is clear that it is allowed
          to call extension functions without using
          xsl:script to define them.

In other words, a processor can support "built-in" 
extension functions for any namespace with an "opaque"
implementation, just as an XSLT 1.0 processor can do
today. 

______________________________________________________________
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/


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