Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:01:59 -0700 |
> > With scripts, > it is implied that a full implementation of the interpreter > is availabele. > > No, not at all. If you use xsl:script to bind the same extension > namespace to a java method, some vbscript inlined in the stylesheet and > a perl function accessed by some qname, then you are not implying that > an XSL system implements java, perl and vbscript. You are implying that > you hope that the XSL system might implement one of them. > > Forget xsl:script is called script it isn't about adding scripting > where before there is none, it is about offering an idirection that > allows different implementations of functions bound to the same > namespace URI so that extension functions in that namespace may be > portable to more than one processor. Maybe one of this days you'll explain why this cannot be done with XSLT 1.0. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Tobias Reif |
Month |