Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

> > Would it be possible for XSL implementors to agree on a
> > common extension
> > namespace for some of these (that is explicitly an _experimental_
> > extension and does not imply later acceptance by W3C)
> 
> I think it would be very nice if someone set up a namespace for experimental
> extension elements and functions with some simple rules:
> 
> * Anyone can define a function and register it in this namespace provided
> that
>   - the name is not already registered
>   - they provide a clear specification of what the function does
>   - the function is intrinsically portable (i.e. it is theoretically capable
> of being
>     implemented on any processor or any platform)
>   - the function is free of side-effects
>   - there is a four-week period for comments and discussion before the spec
> is frozen
>   - the person registering the function provides open source
> implementation(s) that work with at least one processor
>   - there is an opportunity for other people to provide implementation(s)
> for other processors.

Now you're talking.

Is it not worth trying out this approach for a while before diving in with the 
XSLT 1.1 stuff?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +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