Re: [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 010310
A minor glitch: Appendix B of the Math and Sets documents incorrectly refers to the Common document for a description of exsl:function. Dave Hartnoll. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeni Tennison" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 Drafts 010310 > Hi, > > There are new drafts of the EXSLT 1.0 documents available. The > changes are as follows: > > EXSLT 1.0 - Common > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/common/ > > Changes: > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > > EXSLT 1.0 - Sets > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/sets/ > > Changes: > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > * Removed arguments that require dynamic evaluation. > * Changed the name of set:following to set:trailing. > * Changed the second argument for set:leading and set:trailing to a > node set and revised functionality. > * Removed set:exists and set:forall as they are fairly pointless > without dynamic evaluation. > > EXSLT 1.0 - Math > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/math/ > > Changes: > * Changed the prefix used in this document from 'num' to 'math'. > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > * Removed arguments that require dynamic evaluation. > * Removed math:sum function as without dynamic evaluation, this is > already supported in XSLT. > * Changed wording on math:max, math:min, math:highest and > math:lowest to indicate that the node values are converted to > numbers as with the number function. > > EXSLT 1.0 - Functions > http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/functions/ > > Changes: > * Changed wording on conformance in the Introduction. > * Removed example functions that involve dynamic evaluation of > strings. > * Altered example implementations to reflect changes to EXSLT 1.0 - > Sets and EXSLT 1.0 - Math. > > > The biggest alteration is that I've taken out any dynamic evaluation > in these drafts. If anyone has objections to that change, let me know. > > If there aren't any objections, and no one has any further functions > to add to Common, Math or Sets, then I'd like to finalise these so > that implementers feel better about implementing them. Of course more > functions can be added in the future, but this is the basic set. > > There are still lots of issues left on how to define functions, most > of which are fairly fundamental - should EXSLT follow the FXPath > methods of defining functions? Should you be allowed to gradually > build up node sets with multiple exsl:result elements (or something > similar)? I think that just about everyone who has an opinion has > said their piece, and I think that the current state roughly reflects > the consensus, but I may be wrong. If there aren't objections to the > current state, then I'd like to finalise it as is. > > Finally - are there any other functions or sets of functions that > should be added to EXSLT 1.0? What extension functions do you find > useful? Are there any extension elements that should be added? > > Cheers, > > Jeni > --- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com/ > > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > > 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