Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in defence of xsl:script) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:04:02 GMT |
> Make this disctinction if you like, but all these issues can be dealt > with just as effectively outside the core XSLT spec. yes, I agree, there are other reasonable alternatives to xsl:script. And I cringe every time I see a stylesheet using msxsl:script to implement something in javascript that's built into xpath. that isn't what i want to encourage! However I felt that the case against xsl:script was basically being over influenced by the fact that its name "script" seems to lead people to believe that it's about a new mechanism of writing non portable procedural script code into otherwise pure xsl territory. But I don't see it that way at all. It might better be called xsl:standard-binding-mechanism (well you've argued against the standardised bindings as well, so i suppose you wouldn't like that either, but I wasn't addressing those arguments, just the argument against "script proliferation") If an XSL file uses an extension function from a non XSL namespace then it seems there are at least three choices: The extension namespace is "known" to the system and it isn't explictly declared anywhere (other than being declared as a namespace) The extension namespace is bound to an implementation of the functions in that namespace by some standardised mechanism outside the xsl namespace (and possibly outside the xsl file) or (the feature added with xsl:script) There is a standardised mechanism within XSL or specifying an implementation or implementations. I don't really want to argue with you about your comments on whether standardised bindings are a good thing. (Because you know more about that side of things than I do) But what I was trying to point out that _your_ arguments are arguing about the core issue (whether a standardised binding is a good idea) and that xsl:script, despite its name, isn't about encouraging the use of scripting languages. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp 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, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in def, Clark C. Evans |
RE: [xsl] sorting problem, Modha Kumar | Date | RE: [xsl] sorting problem, Ray Lukas |
Month |