On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:00:32AM -0000, Liam R. E. Quin
liam(_at_)fromoldbooks(_dot_)org 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(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Þæs oferéode, ðisses swá mæg.
-- Deor ("That passed, so may this.")
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--