- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:57:52 +0000
- 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 UTC