> Thanks for your response, this is the confirmation of my 
> reading of the archives of the list and other articles.
> 
> Then I've got 1 concrete question (more in fact, but let's 
> start with it) :
> 
> I write an extension element in java with the saxon processor 
> by implementing the 
> net.sf.saxon.style.ExtensionElementFactory. It works, and I'm 
> very happy. But then, I have to change the implementation of 
> xslt, and move to xalan (or any other java processor). 
> I've got a problem, haven't I ?
> Saxon uses its own interface, and xalan too... So I've got to 
> rewrite my extension according to the xalan interface.
> 
> I thought that XSLT 1.1 would provide independant interfaces 
> (in the same way that DOM does with the org.w3c.dom.* 
> package) in order to write portable code. Wouldn't it be more 
> simple and safe for user to have such a definition ?

Yes, it would be nice if there was a standard interface for doing this.

But the XSL WG decided that it was not their job, and no-one else has
volunteered.

Michael Kay



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