Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in defence of xsl:script) From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:38:10 -0700 |
> > Not unless you code, test, document and > > optimise your extensions in both java and Jscript, surely? > > there's the rub. If you are using extensions then your document isn't > portable. But at least with xsl:script it can be _made_ portable. This is no more true than in XSLT 1.0. > You can have one xsl:script binding the extension namespace to > some vbscript and another xsl:script binding it to a method in your java > classpath. And you can do the same thing with externally-implemented extensions in XSLT 1.0. > With xslt 1.0 typically you have an extension namespace which > directly hooks into the fully qualified java name and any hope of > porting off java is small. It is only as small as the Java implementor's (and indeed any language's implementor's) willingness to collaborate. > (One needs to distinguish between built in > extensions like saxon:evaluate and xt:node-set etc and which is a > separate issue, and the facility all XSLT 1.0 java enjines have of > binding essentially arbitrary java methods to extension functions. Make this disctinction if you like, but all these issues can be dealt with just as effectively outside the core XSLT spec. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in def, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in def, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] format-number underspecif, Steve Muench | Date | RE: [xsl] sorting problem, Modha Kumar |
Month |