[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math

Subject: Re: [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math
From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:45:05 +0000
Re:  [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common
Congratulations again. Stuff steam engines - when I grow up I want to
write proposals as clear as Jeni's.


Jeni Tennison wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks to those of you that commented on the last EXSLT draft. I've
> put up a new draft for user-defined functions and a couple of handy
> extension functions at:
> 
>   http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/common/
> 
re "Issue: exsl:reference-of" - the reference-of and add-result issues
are so entwined. As you note, using the @select form of exsl:result does
in fact give you return-by-reference. I now think that having an
incremental return mechanism would probably cover the whole case - maybe
exsl:result-set (is this any better than exsl:append?) with the same
syntax and semantics as exsl:result, except the explicit assurance that
it can be used iteratively to build up a result nodeset from its
contents (by value) or from its select expression (by reference,
assuming that the expression returns a nodeset).

> There's a list of changes to the last draft there, but also of
> interest is that I've created a couple more documents at:
> 
>   http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/sets/
>   http://www.jenitennison.com/xslt/exslt/math/
> 
> that hold some extension functions. These are intended to be a
> starting point for a number of groups of standard (built-in) functions.
> 
> The most important issues for developing these functions are (a)
> whether there are other sets of functions that we should define and
> (b) what functions we should have in them.  These documents are just a
> starting point - please post any comments and suggestions here.
> 
Given that both sets of extension functions require the same
infrastructure (xslt, exsl, and the com:eval function), and that you
provide source for the functions in that infrastructure, I'd be inclined
to put them in a single namespace, or at least a single proposal. OK,
its inelegant, but as a transform author I'd rather not have to worry
about whether adding a math function call to my set function calls will
break the transform on someone's processor.

Francis.

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


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.