Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in defence of xsl:script) From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:27:12 +0000 |
David Carlisle wrote: > > > I have no particular desire to fill my stylesheets with a scripting > language (although perhaps emacs lisp might make a nice extension > language, or TeX, ....) However I think I disagree completely with the > above. > I'd quite like to fill my stylesheets with XSLT ... thus my current campaign to get XSLT included as an xsl:script source language, or to add the equivalent of Mike Kay's saxon:function. > If you just use xsl:script then the situation is exactly the same as > in XSL 1.0. Your stylesheet will be portable. > Between eg Saxon and MSXML3? Not unless you code, test, document and optimise your extensions in both java and Jscript, surely? > If, in XSLT 1.0 or 1.1 you use an extension function from a non XSL > namespace then your stylesheet will not be portable. > > The only difference is that in XSLT 1.0 you won't in general have any > idea what the extension function is supposed to do (if it isn't "your" > namespace") but in XSLT 1.1 you may be able to look at an xsl:script > element which will specify (in a portable way) the binding of that > extension function to some external code library or some inlined script. > > But note it is the use of an extension function that makes the document > non portable. xsl:script does not _do_ anything. it just specifies the > binding of extension functions to code, so helps specify what it is > extension functions are doing. extension functions are the enemy of > portability, not xsl:script. And they are already in XSLT 1.0. > Surely the point is that xsl:script will encourage the development of a fragemented codebase that uses language-specific extensions. And inter-platform portability will suffer as a result. As long as there is no option to code extension functions in platform-portable XSLT, that goal will move further out of reach. Am I wrong, David? If anyone can offer surprise me with a good case for not implementing XSLT extension functions alongside external ones, I'm sure you can! Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in def, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in def, David Carlisle |
[xsl] Saxon Quirk, Devlin, Kurt | Date | Re: [xsl] XPath expression "everyth, Michael Beddow |
Month |