Re: [xslt] XSLT conformance issues -- ext[1-3]

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:17:33AM +0200, Thomas Broyer wrote:
[ Sorry I'm on the road. Didn't had time to read most of what you wrote ]
> There are three types of "extensions":
>  · top-level elements
>  · instruction elements
>  · functions

  Sorry no top level elements are not part of XSLT extension framework
and I'm unsure why they are needed . Relying on those to be processed
is not part of the standard and unless I get a proof it is indeed needed
we should not make specific provision for them.

> I know this totally changes the very-new extension API, I'm sorry, I
> misread some part of the spec (particularly the one saying top-level
> elements are not "extension elements", in [14.1 Extension ELements])
> 
> [NOTE: this is a proposal. It's for a better extension framework only. I
> think I can implement EXSLT without it -- processing top-level elements in
> xsltExtInitFunction by going through the stylesheet trees, etc. --, it
> would just be better/easier if such a framework existed]
> 
> Actually, only Issue ext3 is _really_ an issue and MUST be fixed.

  Will read and come back with an answer when possible, one point is sure
the existing API must be preserved now.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Sep 17-18 2001 Brussels Red Hat TechWorld http://www.redhat-techworld.com