W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > December 2008

Re: uuid question

From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:41:50 +0100
Message-ID: <ebaca5bf0812070641x77bc1c6drf807a0710a4387f1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Toman_Vojtech@emc.com, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

2008/12/6 Dave Pawson wrote:

> 2008/12/5 Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>:

  Hi Dave,

>> Extensibility hooks such as that in XPath [...]

> Hooks yes, but 'extensions'? No IMHO.

  Using "extensibility hooks" provided by XPath but not defining
"extensions" ? ;-)

  XPath defines a language where you can call functions, as well as a
standard function library.  An host language can provide additional
functions.  XSLT provides such additional functions, for instance.
And XSLT says the following about extensibility (or "extensions"):

    2.7 Extensibility

    XSLT defines a number of features that allow the language to be
    extended by implementers, or, if implementers choose to provide
    the capability, by users. These features have been designed, so
    far as possible, so that they can be used without sacrificing
    interoperability. Extensions other than those explicitly defined
    in this specification are not permitted.

  Now, whether it is a good or a bad thing for a particular case,
that's another question.  And I don't have any strong idea about this
particular case.  But defining additional functions available in the
XPath static context at some particular places in a pipeline
definition is not hurting good sense, IMHO.

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2008 14:42:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 December 2008 14:42:26 GMT