Re: Status

James Fuller wrote:
> John L. Clark wrote:
>
>   
>> 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.
>   

I disagree.  I think that EXSLT should cover all areas where XSLT
permits extension.  This includes foreign attributes (so long as they
obey the rules XSLT has set forth) and places such as extension output
methods.  EXSLT started because, for example, multiple processors were
redefining myext:node-set.  I think that it is just as important for
EXSLT to help standardize, say <xsl:output method="myext:xhtml" ...


> thx for kicking things off, much appreciated.
>
> I would add the following;
>
> * resolve licensing issue
>   

I think we're agreed on this mater?  Just a matter of asserting the
licensing in upcoming releases?

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

Yes.  I think this is the point of all this renewed work.

> 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.
>   

Just to be clear, bugs in what?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/