Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> That is my point about it being a stop-gap measure -- it will be a while
> until XSLT is a general purpose transformation language.  Maybe it will
> never be.  Good design takes time, and is interlocked with other standards.
> It's better for us to limit the ability of XSLT while we develop good
> designs for things like the document() function, grouping, etc.  Extensions
> also allow vendors and users to prototype ideas, and then have the WG learn
> from them.
> 
Scott, 

does this mean you would favour XSLT extensions in XSLT
(<saxon:function> style) in order to allow "vendors and users to
prototype ideas", or resist it because it would go too far towards
making XSLT "a general purpose transformation language"?

Francis.

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