This is the mail archive of the xsl-list@mulberrytech.com mailing list .


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?


| > I missed in Clark's proposal how new implementations could be
| > added without adding an extra <xbind:implementation> element
| > inside the <xbind:module> element in the stylesheet.
| 
| First of all, the advantage is that the XBind is something that could be
| handled by the parser not the stylesheet (ideally). This way I can implement
| a well known extension in what ever way is best for my parser. This means
| that I can either provide the extension myself or provide a mechanism for
| allowing others 

The only interesting pieces of information that the <xbind:module>
makes available for the processor to perform this hypothetical
selection of implementation, is:

  (1) The language-neutral-uri for the functionality
  (2) The <xbind:implementation> elements offering specific
      examples of implementations and are hard-coded

The current <xsl:script> proposal provides exactly both
of these same two interesting pieces of information:

  (1) A language-neutral URi for the functionality
  (2) the <xsl:script> elements offering specific
      examples of implementations and are hard-coded

| > Did I miss something in Clark's proposal that handles this in a
| > radically more productive way?
| 
| The problem is that it is up to me, the stylesheet author, to know what
| implementations are available. Frankly I don't want the hassle. I say leave
| it up to the parser to do the binding. I'll do everything I can to make it
| easy but it should be up to the parser to do the work. I may even provide
| some help with a javascrip or even some javacode that the parser can
| retrieve. If I'm feeling ambitous, I might build a web service that I can
| provide a binding to as the mechanism of last resort.

The <xsl:script> proposal clearly leaves the decision to the
processor to make. Perhaps you're simply saying that the XSLT 1.1 WD
should make more clear that a processor can *prefer* a built-in
implementation of functions in a given namespace, to any of
the suggested implementations provided in the stylesheet?

This seems like a good technical point that should be clarified
in the spec.

______________________________________________________________
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]