Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:16:48 -0500 (EST) |
Sorry about asking Uche to post for me... for some reason all of my posts yesterday were ignored. I think the problem in retrospect is on my end. And I asked after waiting for a while without seeing my post.. Anyway, I wanted to comment on Steve's observations: On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Steve Muench wrote: > In addition to supporting built-in extensions, many popular > processors support a built-in extension element that > allows users to create their own user-written extension > functions in any namespace. Yes, thus the "implementation" of an extension function is included in the stylesheet. This, IMHO, is a bad idea. Better to have the implementation downloadable via RDDL or some other "find-me-this-extension-function" mechanism. Where extension functions + resolution protocol puts in a layer of indirection that allows for portability. Having the extension functions built into the XSLT stylesheet, is, IMHO a bad idea. > What's needed is to specify the various contracts > at the boundary points between the XSLT processor > and the extension function implementation language > environment. These are the concrete details provided > in XSLT 1.1 for IDL/DOM2, Java/DOM2, and ECMAScript DOM2 > bindings. I have no problems with extension language bindings; so long as the implementations of the extension functions are not in XSLT itself. > | Making a template and calling a template are just too verbose. > | This seperate issue can be solved by an additional namespace "xf" > | with the following behavior: > | > | Anywhere, except as a child of "xsl:template", > | > | <xf:func x="y" /> is equivalent to <xsl:call-template name="func"> > | <xsl:with-param name="x" > | select="y" /> > | </xsl:call-template> > | > | and when a child of xsl:template, > | > | <xf:func x="y"> is equivalent to <xsl:template name="func"> > | ... <xsl:param name="x" > | </xf:func> select="y" /> > | ... > | </xsl:template> > > This approach would appear to have problems > passing literal result-tree-fragment arguments > to templates... > > <xsl:call-template name="foo"> > <xsl:with-param name="content"> > <ul> > <li>One</li> > <li>Two</li> > </ul> > </xsl:with-param> > </xsl:call-template> > > Your example would imply this would be: > > <xf:foo content="<ul><li>...</li></ul>"/> First, this is not a *replacement* for the current syntax, it is a short-hand that makes template calling and definition more bareable for simple, "string" arguments. Second, one would obviously have to do the appropriate escaping when passing result-tree fragments. I'm not saying this is pretty, however, I'm proposing a short-hand, not a replacement. <xf:foo content="<ul><li>...</li></ul>" /> Best, Clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench | Thread | [xsl] syntax sugar for call-templat, Clark C. Evans |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (in def, Steve Muench | Date | [xsl] syntax sugar for call-templat, Clark C. Evans |
Month |