RE: Poluting XSLT??? (Was Re: Designs for XSLT functio

--- Michael Kay <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I get the impression that Mike will
> > implement it too 'cos he just loves adding extensions to Saxon ;)
> 
> I only add things if either (a) I like the design, or (b) it's necessary for
> conformance. (This is often an exclusive or...)
> 
> I hope exsl:append will never make it into category (b), it certainly won't
> make it into category (a).
> 
> Mike Kay
> 


Thanks Mike,

It seems obvious to me now, that the ongoing effort to describe future XSLT extension functions
written in XSLT -- this would be very useful as ***purely requirements collection***.

It is also obvious (already showing in the contents of the corresponding threads) that going
beyond that (e.g. into language design) is counter-productive. 

In any case, the result of such "language design" is clearly not "XSLT extension functions
written in XSLT". And wouldn't it be misleading to disguise this new language as XSLT?

Dimitre Novatchev.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/

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