Re: [xsl] [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...)

> However, following on from comments by Dimitre Novatchev I am finding it
> hard to see the how user defined extension functions can be implemented in
> XSLT without adding a considerable amount of complexity to a language which
> is currently (1.0) simultaneously both very elegant and very confused
> (confusing?).

[thoughtful arguments snipped]

I agree that defining extension functions in XSLT might be a performance 
problem, although I disagree with you that it mars any of the elegance of XSLT 
itself.

At any rate, I expect that implementers can provide the best of both worlds 
you outline.  They can look up exsl functions invocations first in their 
native libraries, and if not found, then they look for the corresponding exsl 
implementations in XSLT.

This would provide a great measure of the transparency that some of us prefer, 
and the cross-implementation compatibility that the XSL WG seems to be 
striving for.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list