- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:56:51 +0100
- 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 14:57:26 UTC