RE: XSLT 1.1 comments
> > This means that my original statement IS TRUE. Java implementors will > enjoy benefits from XSLT 1.1 standartization, while Python and C > developers will have to "get together to come up with standard binding > for ... extension functions ..." > Speaking personally, I can't see any reason why the XSL WG would object to including a standard language binding for any language if there is sufficient interest and consensus among users and implementors to create a specification. Unless of course politics gets in the way, but I find it hard to imagine that this would happen with Python or C. There could be a case for publishing language bindings in separate documents, this would have the advantage that the modularity of conformance requirements would be more obvious, but this is only really a difference of presentation, not of substance. SQL for years has had language bindings to a number of defined programming languages, and most SQL vendors implement a small subset of these (typically C and COBOL), and no-one seems to consider this a problem. The DOM uses the same approach. It's better if all the vendors who support COBOL should do it the same way, than if each does it a different way. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format