Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:00:17 -0700
>   Implementations can provide this functionality *independent*
>   of the language the XSLT processor is written in.
> NO! They can't that is what I was trying to say.

Yes they can.  Language-independent interfaces have a long pedigree: see COM, 
CORBA, and many application CLIs.

> The above is a description of saxon:node-set and friends
> other implementations could choose to implement saxon's namespace full
> of built in extensions and that would work as you describe.
> But that kind of extension functionality is unchanged in 1.1.
> what xsl:script is trying to do is give similar flexibility to
> what currently in saxon or xt you would do
> <xsl:value-of
> xmlns:fudge="";
>   select="fudge:randomMethodInThisClass($x)"/>
> That is, saxon, xalan, xt, and friends can execute arbitrary java
> methods that happen to be in your classpath. The namespace used for the
> extension function directly points at at the java class (although not
> directly at a particu;ar implemntation).
> xsl:script gives an indirection allowing this to be more portable.
> Rather than use a namespace directing you to a java class, use a random
> namespace and then offere several possible bindings of that namespace to
> implementations, java vbscript or whatever.

And you're having no better luck than anyone else as to why this particular 
URI munging scheme deserves special status within the XSLT specification.

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