Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:14:03 -0000 |
> > This means that my original statement IS TRUE. Java implementors will > enjoy benefits from XSLT 1.1 standartization, while Python and C > developers will have to "get together to come up with standard binding > for ... extension functions ..." > Speaking personally, I can't see any reason why the XSL WG would object to including a standard language binding for any language if there is sufficient interest and consensus among users and implementors to create a specification. Unless of course politics gets in the way, but I find it hard to imagine that this would happen with Python or C. There could be a case for publishing language bindings in separate documents, this would have the advantage that the modularity of conformance requirements would be more obvious, but this is only really a difference of presentation, not of substance. SQL for years has had language bindings to a number of defined programming languages, and most SQL vendors implement a small subset of these (typically C and COBOL), and no-one seems to consider this a problem. The DOM uses the same approach. It's better if all the vendors who support COBOL should do it the same way, than if each does it a different way. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Alexey Gokhberg |
Re: [xsl] "expected markup declarat, Jeni Tennison | Date | [xsl] [ANNOUNCE] XSLT-process 1.2 a, Ovidiu Predescu |
Month |