Subject: [Fwd: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (fwd)] From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:48:55 -0700 |
Clark C. Evans <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> asked me to post this to the list for him: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:19:53 -0500 (EST) From: Clark C. Evans <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Carlisle wrote: > > If I use tags that are not in the XSL namespace then its not 100% xsl is it. > > its XSL + saxon extensions. Its still valid XSL but its not 100% pure BC > > grown XSL. > > that is still true with 1.1's xsl:script. If you don't use functions or > elements in an extension namespace then the xsl file is portable. No > matter how many xsl:script elements you might have used. It seems that many of us think that extension functions are "acceptable", where xsl:script is a horse of a completely different color: Extension functions specify particular functionality be carried out, and do not specify an implementation. For each extension function, a small and seperate specification can be laid out describing the intent of the function. Implementations can provide this functionality *independent* of the language the XSLT processor is written in. With an extension function, I can enumerate what exact functions are needed; this implies that it is completely acceptable to implement just a few functions of a given type. Scripts are embedded code of a completely different language with it's own interpreter, etc. Certainly one could write an implementation of each interpreter independent of the language; but writing function vs writing a full-fledged interpreter is a big leap in complexity. With scripts, it is implied that a full implementation of the interpreter is availabele. Thus, enumeration of additional required functionality is a very hard problem. As such, extension functions provide a nice "layer" between the XSLT script and the transform; with scripts the layering is given up altogether. I think scripts are an ill-advised move, all bets at cross-platform compatibilty go out the door. Many people want scripts beacuse the "modulization" abilities of XSLT leave alot to be desired, i.e., making a template and calling a template are just too verbose. This seperate issue can be solved by an additional namespace "xf" with the following behavior: Anywhere, except as a child of "xsl:template", <xf:func x="y" /> is equivalent to <xsl:call-template name="func"> <xsl:with-param name="x" select="y" /> </xsl:call-template> and when a child of xsl:template, <xf:func x="y"> is equivalent to <xsl:template name="func"> ... <xsl:param name="x" </xf:func> select="y" /> ... </xsl:template> Clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Building an index in XSL, Devlin, Kurt | Thread | [Fwd: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (, Uche Ogbuji |
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments - pleas, Evan Lenz | Date | [Fwd: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |