Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

Steve Muench wrote:
> 
> | I also like the idea expressed here of implementing extension
> | functions in XSLT.
> 
> So do I. See Michael Kay's <saxon:function> extension
> element for one idea of the shape that extension functions
> in XSLT might take.
> 
<saxon:function> looks just right, now I've looked it up.

Why did I have to look it up, when I develop using instant saxon anyway?
Because we deliver with MSXML3 so I don't bother investigating any of
Mike's well-reputed extension functions.

Just to open this up a bit, I haven't heard any arguments *against*
implementing XSLT extension functions in XSLT, so I'll put up a couple
myself.

[1]	we don't have enough experience to know the best way of doing this

[2]	it would encourage bad coding practice

[3]	for maximum benefit to XSLT developers it should be a mandatory
feature, but this would impose an unacceptable burden on XSLT
implementors.

None of them look too plausible to me - I have to admit I haven't done
much research on this, but the absence of problems on this list with
<saxon:function> suggest that it should be, at minimum, pretty adequate.
I don't think any bad coding style triggered by this feature woud be
half as vicious as the consequences of herding developers into non-XSLT
extensions. And I'm just hoping and guessing - again without research -
that implementing this feature is largely syntax-sugar - and if not,
let's make it optional.

Can anyone who knows tell me if I'm right or wrong?

Francis.

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