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