Subject: Re: EcmaScript, gone? From: Francois Belanger <francois@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 98 10:06:54 -0400 |
Paul Prescod wrote on 27/08/98 09:09: >The chapter on extensibility is not finished yet. The XSL draft use of <define-script> was fine but imposing the use of ECMAScript was not. The need to address this issue is urgent IMHO as extensibility is making a user much more comfortable in embracing XSL as she knows she can write a script if she runs into a specific situation not addressed by the current spec. We could maybe use something like <xsl:define-script method="myformat" language="ECMAScript">, that would allow XSL processor to recognize and process or ignore the element (and corresponding method calls) if it has such capabilities. One define-script per method. This would also open up to other languages and even let mix different languages within the same stylesheet. I personally use XSL server-side and built a XSL parser (based on 1st draft) in Perl that was using <define-script language="Perl"> to extend it's functionality. I'm not aware of any server-side ECMAScript implementation (and not sure if even I'm interested in one). As for calling the defined methods, the <xsl:value-of> element seems to fit the bill with calls like <xsl:value-of expr="myformat(attribute(first-name))". Francois Belanger Sitepak, Bringing Internet Business into Focus http://www.sitepak.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: EcmaScript, gone?, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: EcmaScript, gone?, Paul Prescod |
Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Dave Peterson | Date | XSL Usability, Paul Prescod |
Month |