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 20:43:24 -0500 (EST)
Steve, I think we are getting somewhere now.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> Ok. Understand now. But still seems like overkill to
> me for the common use case of a few little functions
> that your own stylesheet needed to get a job done.
> But I'm guessing we'll just have to agree to disagree
> on this point.

There is a significant difference here.  With xsl:script
as it stands, the stylesheet writer provides the
implementations directly; and if they only provide
Javascript for example, then this stylesheet has no
way to be portable. A level of indirection does not
solve the portability problem, but at least gives
a few other chances for a resonable implementation.

>   <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:xsl="..."
>                   xmlns:date="";
>                   xmlns:maths="";>

Ok. I got you.  What if xsl:script were changed from...

>   <xsl:script implements-prefix="date"
>               language="lang:yyyy"
>               src=""/>


    <xsl:script implements="";

This has an advantage.  Now I can have an "include" file
with a much of xsl:scritps and not have to specify the
"prefix".   Also, my stylesheet can now have a single 
xml:include rather than a ton of xsl:script entries...

> The draft doesn't impose any particular URI, but
> let's you or the community invent your own
> globally-unique, implementation independent URI's
> to be the identifier for a set of functions that
> accomplish a particular body of interesting functionality.

Ok. I think I'm buying this better if implements-prefix is
replaced with implements-functionality or something like that.

What do you think?


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread