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