---- you Tom Amiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ----
> Good point. It would be best if we used the same name space and
> function names. But I kinda like "output" as the function/element name
> better than "redirect". XSLT users would find "output" easier to
remember,
> since it already controls various aspects of the output from
> a transformation. Saxon also uses "output".
Yeah, but this extension isn't controlling the output of the transformation
at all - that's done with xsl:output and the normal StreamResult (or
DOMResult, etc). This extension basically causes a big side effect to
happen during the transformation - a second output is created in a very
specific way. Redirect isn't a bad name, since it's a pretty common
programming term, and one that matches what it does fairly well. Not
perhaps what I would have chosen from the start, tho I can't think of what
I'd want more right now.
And Dave has a point, in that the secondary output of either of these
extensions (xsltc:output or xalan:redirect) isn't really controlled by the
xsl:output method, so we should be careful to avoid naming conflicts. And
Saxon will have a different namespace anyway, so I'm not sure it's a win to
match them. (although it's a good point to see what they're doing with
extensions)
Oh, and someday it'd be nice to have the constant definitions of these
tokens centralized between xalan and xsltc. Not sure where best to do
that, but that's a minor point.
- Shane
