Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in defence of xsl:script)

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in defence of xsl:script)
From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:38:10 -0700
> > Not unless you code, test, document and
> > optimise your extensions in both java and Jscript, surely?
> there's the rub. If you are using extensions then your document isn't
> portable. But at least with xsl:script it can be _made_ portable.

This is no more true than in XSLT 1.0.

> You can have one xsl:script binding the extension namespace to
> some vbscript and another xsl:script binding it to a method in your java
> classpath.

And you can do the same thing with externally-implemented extensions in XSLT 

> With xslt 1.0 typically you have an extension namespace which
> directly hooks into the fully qualified java name and any hope of
> porting off java is small.

It is only as small as the Java implementor's (and indeed any language's 
implementor's) willingness to collaborate.

> (One needs to distinguish between built in
> extensions like saxon:evaluate and xt:node-set etc and which is a
> separate issue, and the facility all XSLT 1.0 java enjines have of
> binding essentially arbitrary java methods to extension functions.

Make this disctinction if you like, but all these issues can be dealt with 
just as effectively outside the core XSLT spec.

Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread