Re: Status

John L. Clark wrote:

>In order to take stock of where this project lies and perhaps infuse it
>with some new energy, I started an ad-hoc status document[0] that
>catalogs some of the outstanding issues that I believe ought to be
>addressed by the community in some form.
>
>I think that we should spawn new threads on this list for any of the
>individual topics raised in the article.  The article currently only
>covers substantive issues, but I plan to extend it to procedural issues
>in the near future.
>  
>
excellent.

>One of these topics on which I have intended to start working is the one
>involving new attributes for the <xsl:output/> element.  It seems,
>however, that we only have a process in place for submitting function
>and element extensions, but not "other" extensions.  Should I just use
>the element template, and fill in the details using the <xsl:output/>
>element as the root?  Are these templates used for formatting and human
>review only, or do they feed into some more formal process?
>  
>
Not sure how others feel on custom attributes,  it feels like best
practice to me to constrain extensions to function and element extensions;

in light of this, I would propose an exsl:output element under common
module.

>What mechanisms do we have in place for accepting and incorporating
>submissions?
>  
>

>I hope that EXSLT can have a vivacious future.
>  
>

thx for kicking things off, much appreciated.

I would add the following;

* resolve licensing issue

* explicitly describe a goal to get a clean v1.0 dist of EXSLT

and perhaps something on getting a table of coverage of EXSLT
implementation....working on this.

in the meantime I will have a start at punching out the trivial bugs.

ta, Jim Fuller