W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Extension function prefixes/namespace

From: David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:34:56 -0400
Message-ID: <49F5B480.3060609@calldei.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
CC: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
It would work great if functions were in their own namespace (distinct 
from steps), which IMHO is a "better" design.
But I can see the arguments both ways.


Norman Walsh wrote:
> "David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes:
>> I think the problem I'm running into is an implementation not a spec issue.
>> The *implementation* (Saxon) I'm using is done by re-declaring the
>> namespace prefix to be bound to the function class.
> Yeah, well, that won't work, will it? :-)
> There's a better API, but it's a little deeper into Saxon. Look at
> XProcFunctionLibrary and friends in XML Calabash.
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm

David A. Lee
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 13:35:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:35:53 GMT