- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:53:13 +0100
- To: "Bohlmann, Karsten" <karsten.bohlmann@sap.com>
- CC: "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Hi Karsten, > Concerning the builtin-vs-user-defined issue, I would go even > further: The spec should *require* implementations to *refuse* user > function definitions in their own vendor namespace (which contains > the implementation-defined extension functions). That way, the issue > "which definition overrides?" would disappear, and so would the > danger of obscure constructions like > > <xsl:function name="saxon:intersection" xmlns:saxon="http://saxon.sf.net/"> > <xsl:param name="z1"/> > <xsl:param name="z2"/> > <xsl:result select="... something very different from intersection ..." /> > </xsl:function> This would also make it harder for people to write stylesheets that are portable across processors where one processor implements an extension function natively and another processor does not. For example, say that the date:format-date() function from EXSLT was implemented natively in Saxon and not implemented in Xalan. A stylesheet author could take the XSLT function implementation from the EXSLT site and use that in their stylesheet, so that calling date:format-date() would work in whichever processor was used in the function. Under your suggestion, this would cause an error in Saxon. Aside from saving the WG from having to make a decision on the built-in-vs-user-defined issue, I don't see how this would benefit anyone? Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 13:53:14 UTC