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

Re: uuid question

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:57:52 +0000
Message-ID: <711a73df0812070657i21ef3539p85eb29233ce67315@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

Hi Florent.

2008/12/7 Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.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" ? ;-)

No. I'm OK with any WD providing a consistent manner in which
extension functions are written.
I object to defining extensions within the WD.



>  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.

Only if the user, or an implementor, defines the extension functions.
That's my view.

regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2008 14:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 December 2008 14:58:28 GMT