Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:10:54 +0000 |
Michael Kay wrote: > > > Can you be a bit more specific about which XSLT 2.0 style "type system > > ramifications" a <saxon:function> feature would raise that aren't > > already raised in <xsl:script>? > > The aspiration is that XSLT 2.0 should be schema-aware in some sense, though > I don't think anyone knows exactly what this means. But one possible > implication is that functions should be in some sense polymorphic: there are > already core functions whose behavior depends on the data types of the > arguments, and it is desirable that user-written functions should also have > this property. This isn't the case for the current <saxon:function>. > It's a very interesting problem, and worthy of a well-thought-out solution, but doesn't it apply equally to xsl:script and the bindings to ecmascript and java? While XML Schema has reached Candidate Release status, it is a complex spec and is still evolving. Apparently - from current comments - this will then be followed by a lengthy period of design ruminations about how best to implement XML Schema type support in XSLT. I am really concerned about the length of time during which platform-dependent extensions will be more "standard" and - god help us - more "portable" than extension functions in XSLT itself. Can't the XSLT community be given *some* loophole, some "experimental" or "optional" or "transitional" feature, for it to demonstrate how much it does or doesn't care about having an XML transformation language that is as portable as XML itself? Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag |
Re: [xsl] [ANNOUNCE] XSLT-process 1, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl:script and side-effec, David Carlisle |
Month |