Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...) From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:57:35 -0700 |
> However, following on from comments by Dimitre Novatchev I am finding it > hard to see the how user defined extension functions can be implemented in > XSLT without adding a considerable amount of complexity to a language which > is currently (1.0) simultaneously both very elegant and very confused > (confusing?). [thoughtful arguments snipped] I agree that defining extension functions in XSLT might be a performance problem, although I disagree with you that it mars any of the elegance of XSLT itself. At any rate, I expect that implementers can provide the best of both worlds you outline. They can look up exsl functions invocations first in their native libraries, and if not found, then they look for the corresponding exsl implementations in XSLT. This would provide a great measure of the transparency that some of us prefer, and the cross-implementation compatibility that the XSL WG seems to be striving for. -- 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] XPath for all of an eleme, Michael Strasser | Thread | RE: [xsl] [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - ca, Kevin Jones |
[xsl] Use of many <xsl:includes..> , Kevin Duffey | Date | Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call f, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |