Subject: RE: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions? From: "Kaganovich, Yevgeniy (Eugene)" <ykaganovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:47:36 -0800 |
: | If it is just an XSLT specification then every : | other W3C spec which needs extension function binding will go : | out and invent their own mechansim rather than re-use a : | common mechanism. : : The way this has worked in the past is that : one working group approaches another and says, : "Hey, we want to use part of what you're doing" : This is how XPath got "factored out" of XSLT : to be shared by XPointer and XSLT (also by XQuery now). : If this dynamic were in set in motion, it might make : sense to factor it out in this way. So how about approaching an XHTML or SVG WGs and asking them to "factor out" scripting so XSLT can use it too? :) An interesting thing about XPath is, it doesn't have a namespace of its own, so it's easy to reuse by different standards. I think it will be harder to factor out scripting if it is bound to XSLT's namespace (and another one in XHTML, and one more in SVG). If xsl:script were xbind:script, and if there was a standard description of function signatures to which RDDL document could point, I think that would make XSLT core much more clearly separated from language extensions. - Eugene XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Steve Muench | Thread | [xsl] Can I match multiple criteria, by way of Mulberry T |
Re: [xsl] re: generation of qnames/, Curt Arnold | Date | [xsl] Coordination of script in XHT, Curt Arnold |
Month |