Re: XSLT 1.1 comments - the chocolate hobnob winner

Hi Francis,

> But since you picked it up on this thread, while I'm don't think it
> answered the original challenge, you've certainly earned a "milk
> chocolate or plain?"

Oh no - I don't want that accolade, firstly because I don't think it
stands in the way of what you originally proposed:

> Here is a small but concrete proposal:
>
> [1] extend the xsl:script definition to specifically permit "xslt"
> as a value of the language attribute.
> [2] specify a binding to Mike Kay's *function and return elements*
> [1], but in the XSLT namespace, with behaviour exactly as in Saxon -
> ie it would transparently return any data type supported by XPath,
> now or future, or an RTF which could be converted implicitly to a
> node-set in standard XSLT 1.1 style.

(my emphasis) - if we use something like saxon:function and
saxon:return then we're absolutely fine. It's only if we try to coopt
xsl:template into service that we run into (a few) problems, but it's
still worthwhile to come up with a concrete proposal, either for
inclusion in xsl:script (if user-defined extension functions
eventually get supported in XSLT 1.1) or for just anywhere (if dynamic
introspection is somehow introduced instead).

If we try it out with a few well-intentioned implementers, then we'll
be in good stead come XSLT 2.0 ("2.6 Should Allow Authoring Extension
Functions in XSLT").  I want that 'should' to be 'will' - having good
experience will hopefully help to convince the WG.

And secondly because the hobnobs would ruin my figure.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/



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