- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:53:54 +0100
- To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
2008/12/7 Dave Pawson wrote: > 2008/12/7 Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>: >> 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. Well, I think that's not the spirit of the XPath REC. Besides the "regular" kind of extensions in other languages (defined by the implementation or by the user using another language) XPath provides to the host language the ability to define additional functions. See for instance key(), current(), generate-id(), and others in XSLT. I think those functions are good examples of additional functions (instead of having defined corresponding XSLT instructions.) But that becomes more an XPath question. Maybe we should switch to XSL List? Regards, -- Florent Georges http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2008 15:54:29 UTC