Thanks for your response, this is the confirmation of my
reading of the archives of the list and other articles.
Then I've got 1 concrete question (more in fact, but let's
start with it) :
I write an extension element in java with the saxon processor
by implementing the
net.sf.saxon.style.ExtensionElementFactory. It works, and I'm
very happy. But then, I have to change the implementation of
xslt, and move to xalan (or any other java processor).
I've got a problem, haven't I ?
Saxon uses its own interface, and xalan too... So I've got to
rewrite my extension according to the xalan interface.
I thought that XSLT 1.1 would provide independant interfaces
(in the same way that DOM does with the org.w3c.dom.*
package) in order to write portable code. Wouldn't it be more
simple and safe for user to have such a definition ?
Yes, it would be nice if there was a standard interface for doing this.
But the XSL WG decided that it was not their job, and no-one else has
volunteered.
Michael Kay
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list