Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer of indirection

Subject: Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer of indirection
From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:42:16 -0500 (EST)
Steve,  Thank you for your continued conversation.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> I don't understand how the "URI-to-ResourceContainingXBindModule"
> binding takes place. How does the processor "hook up" with
> its XBindModule definition? From where does it fetch it the
> first time? Does it periodically ping for updates?

I listed several levels of "hook-up" in the e-mail, you
neglected to discuss the first few:  (1) build-in, 
(2) local-catalogue, (3) stylesheet-provided, (4) 
ask-the-user, and instead focused only on the RDDL
based binding mechanism, which I refer you to the
RDDL discussion for more detail.

> This, I believe, is a red herring. URI's are URI's.

Where in the xsl:script spec is a URI provided
to identify the functionality described?  There
is a prefix, and this is not a global URI.  Also
there is a "src", and this is not a language 
independent URI and must be missing when the
script code is included in the stylesheet.  So, 
What am I missing?  Where is this 
implementation-independent-uri in the 1.1 Draft?

> The prefix referenced by <xsl:script implements-prefix="foo">
> would be assigned to this globally-unique namespace URI
> at the top of the stylesheet or directly on the <xsl:script>
> element itself, depending on the developer's preference.

I think you are digging here.  This URI is for the prefix,
not for the module, and in the example it says "uri.any".
This is hardly a uri representing the functionalty

> I think that your saying that a hastily-selected, 
> for-all-intents-and-purposes-temporary URI used 
> with <xsl:script> is different from a responsibly-selected
> URI used with the xbind. Which I agree with. However,
> both can be used with responsibly-selected namespace URI's. 

Ok.  So you are saying, given

   <script implements-prefix="prfix" language="java" src="..." />

A processor, could use the resoultion I put forth earlier,
for "my-unique-uri-identifying-functionality" without even
using the "script"  Could I even remove "script" altoghether then?

And make the "script" binding stuff _seperate_ from XSLT
in with it's own registry/biding mechanism?


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread