On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:00:32AM -0000, Liam R. E. Quin liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx scripsit:
> > I realize that there's no reason not to write this as a user-defined
> > function; it's how often I wind up wanting it that makes me think it
> > might be something to consider as a language function.
> 
> A widely shared xml-document funtion library might be better, do you
> think?

Depends.

"Widely shared" seems to mean "shipped with the processor"; the EXPATH file utilities, for example, aren't practically distinct from "what you get with BaseX" or "what you get with Saxon".  That's not how I think of a shared library; EXPATH seems more like a language extension. (a really USEFUL language extension!)

I don't know of any actual shared libraries for XSLT; the package mechanism is new with XSLT 3 and not that widely used so far as I've seen.  I wouldn't want to try to have an opinion on packaging for XSLT 4 because I've never used the existing package system.

I'm pretty sure "widely shared function library" would require a lot more comfort with packages than currently exists.

-- 
Graydon Saunders  | graydonish@xxxxxxxxx
^fs oferiode, pisses swa mfg.
-- Deor  ("That passed, so may this.")