RE: RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?

: | If it is just an XSLT specification then every
: | other W3C spec which needs extension function binding will go
: | out and invent their own mechansim rather than re-use a 
: | common mechanism.
: 
: The way this has worked in the past is that
: one working group approaches another and says,
: "Hey, we want to use part of what you're doing"
: This is how XPath got "factored out" of XSLT
: to be shared by XPointer and XSLT (also by XQuery now).
: If this dynamic were in set in motion, it might make
: sense to factor it out in this way.

So how about approaching an XHTML or SVG WGs and asking them to "factor out"
scripting so XSLT can use it too? :)

An interesting thing about XPath is, it doesn't have a namespace of its own,
so it's easy to reuse by different standards. I think it will be harder to
factor out scripting if it is bound to XSLT's namespace (and another one in
XHTML, and one more in SVG).

If xsl:script were xbind:script, and if there was a standard description of
function signatures to which RDDL document could point, I think that would
make XSLT core much more clearly separated from language extensions.

- Eugene

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