Re: New document: Requirements for XSLT 1.1

["Steve Muench" <smuench@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

| I have two questions about these requirements:
| 
| 1. It seems that the following two requirements contradict each other:
| "Language bindings MUST be provided for Java and ECMAScript " 
| and
| "A processor SHOULD NOT be required to implement the portable extension
| function binding for any particular language "

This means (remember this is a document about requirements for XSLT 1.1):

  -> The XSLT 1.1 Spec MUST detail language bindings for Java & ECMAScript
     so that the implementation for the bindings for these two languages 
     is normatively defined.

  -> The XSLT 1.1. Spec should not require an XSLT 1.1-conformant processor
     to support any particular language for extension functions. This is
     the same as in XSLT 1.0 where the extension functions/elements are
     defined but not required to be implemented.

The fallout of these two points is:

  -> If an XSLT 1.1 processor implements *either* Java or ECMAScript or
     both (perhaps, among other languages) for extension functions...

  -> Then its Java and ECMAScript bindings must conform to those
     specified in the XSLT 1.1 specification.

| 2. Could someone please, explain what is the meaning of "inline
| extension function implementation" ("Extension function implementations
| MUST be allowed both inline as well as externally ")?

An inline function implementation is one where the code for the
implementation is provided inside the body of the stylesheet.
That is, somewhere in the stylesheet itself, you would see code
like:

  function myfunc() {
    // do something here
  }

External implementations are those that live in some external
code unit (like a Java class or a JavaScript file).

| In my understanding an inline implementation of an extension function
| will take the source code of this extension function from a node of the
| stylesheet (hence inline) and interpret it. This is currently done in
| msxml with scripting languages-based extension functions.
| However, it seems to me to be obviously prohibitively expensive in
| terms of efficiency (speed) to apply a similar inline processing
| approach towards a compiled language - based extension function (e.g.
| Java-based).

It is not the intent to imply that ANY language must support BOTH
inline and external, but that the XSLT 1.1 specification MUST
support/allow both styles.

______________________________________________________________
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list