Re: Extension function prefixes/namespace

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.

-D


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
dlee@calldei.com  
http://www.calldei.com