Subject: Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions? From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 04:19:53 -0500 (EST) |
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Jeni Tennison wrote: > > a) The functionality is the primary object, and it > > identified by an opaque, language independent URI > > that is unique in the current context. > > The functionality (of a whole bunch of functions) is a primary object > in both methods, as far as I can see. Both use a namespace URI to > identify a set of functions in a bunch of languages. Perhaps it's the > opacity that's the issue. With XSLT 1.1 the implementation is *right > there* (or one step away) whereas with your proposal the > implementation is several steps away. Yes, but with the <xsl:import at least with "good style" one can move common scripts into single import module. > > b) That the implementations and/or instructions for > > binding to an implementation need not be in > > the stylesheet itself, perferably it is a > > seperate xml structure independent of XSLT and > > re-useable by other specifications. > > I think you should push the reuse in other specifications - that's > something that xsl:script element doesn't do. After all, there are > lots of languages that it would be handy to have access to scripts > from - HTML and SVG we've already seen, and I'm sure there are others. I'd be nice if there was a single mechanism that was widely accepted across W3C technologies. > > c) The the method for obtaining an implementation of > > this functionality not be singluar, that is, only > > provided via xsl:script. Perhaps even allowing for > > functions to be used with only a namespace binding; > > assuming that an implementation is either built-in, > > in a local catalogue, or perhaps downloadable via RDDL. > > There's nothing in the XSLT 1.1 WD that mandates that xsl:script is > the only method used to identify what extension functions to use - in > fact it specifically says that xsl:script doesn't preclude any other > method. I'm sure that some XSLT processors will continue to provide > their regular service, e.g. resolving Java classes through namespace > declarations. Yes. Correct once again. I know this too ... I being VeryDense. So. A community based set of extension functions could be dreamed up, and implemented. And, if some processors support the xsl:script mechanism and perhaps Javascript, perhaps some rudamentary implemetations can be given. > > d) That the identifying URI also be coupled with a > > IDL like description of the module. > > That's an issue about resolving namespaces, I think. I think it would > be great to have a standard description format for script modules, but > I don't think that xsl:script *precludes* that. An XSLT processor can > always use the namespace URI to get a functional description if it > wants - or you can go there and look around. Just like getting a > schema for an XML vocabulary. Right, as nothing precludes the addition of this later. > > e) Perhaps even the identifying URI is required to be a > > a globally unique URL that can be used to fetch via RDDL > > a catalogue of implementations, etc. But this may > > be too restrictive. > > Yes. I think there's a lot of potential there, but it does make it > quite a bit harder for someone to just use a little script on their > sample stylesheet. ... > Hmm... perhaps this is part of the problem. The XSLT WG probably > don't want to start mandating things that are outside the purview of a > stylesheet. To do so would go outside XSLT - spark up another WG, > spend another year in discussion and so on - and that's time that's > awasting. > > So, what about having a community based best practice that involves > having the namespace URI used for a module eventually resolve to an > xbind:module document. XSLT processors should use that to identify > the implementations of the functions in multiple languages. > > If the processors can't use that, then they can use xsl:script > elements (or xsl:implementation elements - some term that doesn't > conjure the horrors of HTML). These indicate specific implementations > for the module. Best practice is to place these xsl:script elements in > a separate stylesheet, and to use the src attribute to point to the > code rather than embed it. I think there is a good amount of "best practices" that can be brought out of this. ... Jeni, thank you very much. clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Jeni Tennison | Thread | RE: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Jonathan Borden |
Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:scrip, Clark C. Evans | Date | Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:scrip, Clark C. Evans |
Month |