From: Bryan Rasmussen (bry@itnisk.com)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 15:05:25 CET
the thing is, if most people are agreed that exslt extensions should be
used, if indeed Transquery comes to rely on extensions(which even if it
doesn't come to rely on it there should be some way of addressing the use of
extensions), then this creates some political implications right. One is
that it puts pressure on the Transquery implementer to also support exslt
extensions, two is that it empowers exslt as the arbiter for extensions,
three, and the one closest to my heart, is it maybe helps put a partial
block against the 'orrible 'orrible xsl:script, if Transquery focuses on
queries made using exslt extensions.
That's my sort of gut feeling about its ramifications at any rate.
-----Original Message-----
From: cutlass [mailto:cutlass@secure0.com]
Sent: 4. december 2001 13:05
To: transquery-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [transquery-discuss] Transquery use of Saxon, extensions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@ingenta.com>
To: <transquery-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: [transquery-discuss] Transquery use of Saxon, extensions
> > ...I suppose that if extensions are used in Transquery implementations
> they
> > should be exslt, although for the proof of concept that the demo site is
I
> think
> > it's fine using Saxon. Any opinions there?
>
> I agree. Transquery should not be tied to a particular processor, so using
> the exslt extension functions is a Good Thing.
>
i too agree, but i would be biased.
cheers, jim fuller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 11:35:58 CET