Subject: Re: [xsl] xsl:script and side-effects From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:31:59 GMT |
> With XSLT 1.1 + Java bindings though, users can introduce their > *own* side-effecting operations, They can do that now, with XSL 1.0. _ALL_ the java based XSL engines allow you to use a namespace (a different one for each processor) that ends in the fully qualified java class name and thus lets you run arbitrary methods from your class path. It is the fact that you can not do this in a portable way because every processor binds differently that xsl:script is trying to solve. > So we can end up with strictly conforming stylesheets that behave > differently -- perhaps radically differently! - But not because they have used xsl:script, because they have used an extension function. Put it another way, if you write a single XSL 1.1 stylesheet using xsl:script to bind to a java method then I can give you a saxon XSL 1.0 stylesheet that does the same thing, and an xt one and an xalan one. The only difference is that for XSL 1.1 you have one stylesheet but for XSL 1.0 you have three. This seems to be an improvement in portability to me. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xsl:script and side-effec, Joe English | Thread | RE: [xsl] xsl:script and side-effec, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Jeni Tennison | Date | RE: [xsl] xsl:script and side-effec, Michael Kay |
Month |