Subject: RE: Future XSLT expansion. ( Re: Microsoft XSL and Conformance ) From: "Kaganovich, Yevgeniy (Eugene)" <ykaganovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:59:14 -0800 |
It seems to me from this *long* discussion that what's lacking is the common api for writing extensions. Ignoring Paul's beef with send/recv, one thing I quickly learned while programming in perl is to go to cpan.org and search for the modules which probably already implement 90% of the stuff I need. On the other hand, with XSLT, Saxon and XT each provide an implementation of the same functions because they implement extension mechanism differently, instead of just being able to import each other's extensions. The current situation is, people have to pick and switch between XSL processors depending on which extensions they use. Yuck! Wouldn't it be great, instead, to be able to download a package that implements some function, put it in your classpath, and it's ready to work? Returning to the argument at hand, it does seem like the document() function should not be in core XSLT unless node-set() is as well. I would think that node-set() should be added to the core so that other functions can use it as API to generate processor-dependent nodeset structures. I understand that there are cross-language issues here (a package implemented in Python probably won't run in a Java processor) but these issues have been solved for other specs (JNI and DOM come to mind), so maybe it's possible? - Eugene XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Future XSLT expansion. ( Re: Mi, keshlam | Thread | Re: MSXML happening for a reason !, Wendell Piez |
How do I output an ampersand?, James Lynn | Date | Re: How do I output an ampersand?, Chris Knoll |
Month |