Re: Status

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

>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" ...
>  
>
ok, I am convinced.

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

+1 assert license

>>* 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?
>  
>

I am specifically refering to bugs located in XSLT or script
implementations of EXSLT functions, elements, etc.

caio, Jim