Subject: Re: [xsl] extensions and XSLT 2.0 From: Frédéric Laurent <fl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:16:46 +0200 |
On Friday 16 May 2003 17:31, Michael Kay wrote: > > I've got some questions about element/instruction extensions in the > > specification of XSLT 2.0. > > The definition concerning the data mapping between XPath types and > > java/ecmascript... types, described in the version 1.1 has > > disappeared. > > The decision to abandon the attempt to define language bindings for > extension functions was made a long time ago, and documented in the XSLT > 2.0 requirements. There were a number of reasons for the decision. The > fact that the XSLT 1.1 draft supported Java and ECMAScript, and no other > languages, was very sensitive politically, both with vendors and with > users. If you look in the archives of this list you will find the > evidence of the user side of this, though it was probably the vendor > side that influenced the working group to make the decision. Another > factor was that it was becoming clear that XSLT 2.0 would have a much > richer type system, and that bindings between Java types and XML Schema > types were not a local matter for the XSL WG to define on its own. > > The decision at the time was that standardized language bindings, e.g. > for Java, would be useful, but they should not be done within W3C and > should not be part of the XSLT specification. Eventually I hope that > they might become part of JAXP. Thanks for your response, this is the confirmation of my reading of the archives of the list and other articles. Then I've got 1 concrete question (more in fact, but let's start with it) : I write an extension element in java with the saxon processor by implementing the net.sf.saxon.style.ExtensionElementFactory. It works, and I'm very happy. But then, I have to change the implementation of xslt, and move to xalan (or any other java processor). I've got a problem, haven't I ? Saxon uses its own interface, and xalan too... So I've got to rewrite my extension according to the xalan interface. I thought that XSLT 1.1 would provide independant interfaces (in the same way that DOM does with the org.w3c.dom.* package) in order to write portable code. Wouldn't it be more simple and safe for user to have such a definition ? The problem is identical if I choose to write my extension element in python or C... Am I wrong ? -- Frédéric Laurent http://www.opikanoba.org XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] extensions and XSLT 2.0, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] extensions and XSLT 2.0, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] extensions and XSLT 2.0, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] An interesting angle on t, Mike Haarman |
Month |