Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Sets and Math From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:24:52 +0000 |
Hi Mike, >> I'd like to use system-property() for this. What about: >> >> system-property('exsl:common-available') => true()/false() >> system-property('exsl:math-available') => true()/false() >> ... > > A disadvantage of this is that there's then no mechanism for third > parties to implement the extension libraries. Up till now, the > functions have all been implementable (many of them with a portable > implementation) on top of an XSLT 1.1 processor that supports > xsl:script, without changes to the processor. That's a good point. But on the other hand, it's already possible to test whether specific functions or elements are available with the function-available() and element-available() functions. If we state that implementers must implement each module in its entirety, then you can test whether a module is supported just by testing whether one of the functions is available. If we state that implementers may implement any functions/elements from the module that they wish, then you shouldn't test whether the module is available anyway, but test each function/element as you use it. So why have a test at all? Well, there are some things that we could add to EXSLT that don't involve extension elements or functions: * extension attributes * output methods * sort data types * system properties * script languages (in XSLT 1.1) There's no way to test for the availability of these values, so they're really what we need the test for. And having support for any of the EXSLT values for these properties really needs something built in to the processor anyway. Perhaps that's too wide a scope for EXSLT, but I think it would be jolly useful if we could have an 'exsl:xhtml' output method and a 'exsl:date' sort data type, for example. Am I being too ambitious? Even if the above extras weren't supported, I'd like to see EXSLT used to specify extension elements along the lines of exsl:function, saxon:doctype and saxon:group. Those would need to be built in too, presumably, unless there were some standard mechanism for defining extension elements ala Xalan's lxslt:component. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] [exsl] EXSLT 1.0 - Common, Uche Ogbuji |
Re: [xsl] Non Existent attribute, a, David Carlisle | Date | [xsl] mismatched tags with xsl:if, Xavier Defrang |
Month |