Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:38:13 -0700 |
> > > NO! They can't that is what I was trying to say. > > > > Yes they can. Language-independent interfaces have a long pedigree: > > see COM, CORBA, and many application CLIs. > > I'm not saying there couldn't be one. I'm saying there isn't one in > XSLT 1.0 as it stands today. > > But there are two separate threads happening. > > Some people (including yourself) are arguing that the mechanism > suggested for having a common binding syntax with xsl:script is bad > and should be changed. That is a reasonable argument but not something > that really I feel I should join in on. Argue your case with Mike K or > James C etc (it's better to argue with them anyway as they are on the WG > and so might actually change something:-) They read this list, as I've seen, so I think it's as effective as my squeaky little voice can be to make my case here. > Actually I don't mind _how_ extension functions get bound so long as I > don't have to litter my stylesheet with massive switches or fallback > nestings for each processor. If you come up with a good solution and get > the WG to agree with it, I'm happy. I'm glad to hear this. -- 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, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |