> Would it be possible for XSL implementors to agree on a
> common extension
> namespace for some of these (that is explicitly an _experimental_
> extension and does not imply later acceptance by W3C)

I think it would be very nice if someone set up a namespace for experimental
extension elements and functions with some simple rules:

* Anyone can define a function and register it in this namespace provided
that
  - the name is not already registered
  - they provide a clear specification of what the function does
  - the function is intrinsically portable (i.e. it is theoretically capable
of being
    implemented on any processor or any platform)
  - the function is free of side-effects
  - there is a four-week period for comments and discussion before the spec
is frozen
  - the person registering the function provides open source
implementation(s) that work with at least one processor
  - there is an opportunity for other people to provide implementation(s)
for other processors.

Mike Kay


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