RE: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?

Subject: RE: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?
From: Adam Van Den Hoven <Adam.Hoven@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:35:36 -0800
Steve Muench wrote on his own behalf:

> | important extra level of modularity because a new 
> implementation of a
> | function can be slotted in without having to do anything to the
> | stylesheet.
> I missed in Clark's proposal how new implementations could be
> added without adding an extra <xbind:implementation> element
> inside the <xbind:module> element in the stylesheet.

First of all, the advantage is that the XBind is something that could be
handled by the parser not the stylesheet (ideally). This way I can implement
a well known extension in what ever way is best for my parser. This means
that I can either provide the extension myself or provide a mechanism for
allowing others 

> Just have the importing stylesheet <xsl:import> a 
> (to coin a new term) "library module" stylesheet that only
> consists of:

> Then, the importing stylesheet doesn't have to change when a
> new implementation gets "slotted in" to the library module stylesheet.
> Did I miss something in Clark's proposal that handles this in a
> radically more productive way?

The problem is that it is up to me, the stylesheet author, to know what
implementations are available. Frankly I don't want the hassle. I say leave
it up to the parser to do the binding. I'll do everything I can to make it
easy but it should be up to the parser to do the work. I may even provide
some help with a javascrip or even some javacode that the parser can
retrieve. If I'm feeling ambitous, I might build a web service that I can
provide a binding to as the mechanism of last resort.


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread