[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?
Subject: Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions? From: Joe English <jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:26:29 -0800 |
Michael Kay wrote: > The primary reason is to allow users to write extension functions that are > portable between one XSLT processor and another, as opposed to the current > situation where extensions written for Saxon don't work with Xalan. I still > find it hard to understand why this should be thought such an undesirable > objective. AIUI, nobody is objecting to standardized bindings for extensions; I think the issue is that <xsl:script> allows (and some say encourages) authors to embed extension functions _in the stylesheet itself_. I'd bet that if <xsl:script> were removed entirely but Annex C "DOM-Based Language Bindings" left intact, there wouldn't be nearly as much contention. (Personally, I don't object to <xsl:script/>. It would let me write Java{Script}-capable-implementation-specific stylesheets instead of Saxon-specific stylesheets, which is a step in the right direction at least. I'd be happiest if everyone just agreed to use the same name name for vendor extensions that implement the same functionality though. Oh, and if everyone implemented <saxon:group> while they were at it. That would save me some work :-) --Joe English jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Peter Flynn | Thread | RE: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Adam Van Den Hoven |
Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Steve Muench | Date | RE: [xsl] Debugging tool for XSLT, Michael Fitzgerald |
Month |
Keywords