Subject: Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions? From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:50:06 +0000 |
Hi Steve, > Modulo the additional info about args and return types, see your > <xbind:module> plus multiple <xbind:implementation> children as > isomorphic to the sample number of <xsl:library> elements. They both > have "a-language-independent-uri-that- refers-to-functionality". > They both list multiple implementations of that functionality. Then you wouldn't object to changing XSLT 1.1 so that it uses Clark's idea instead? ;) I agree that they do the same thing, and I'm pleased about that because there are aspects of xsl:script that would be really cool. But I think that there are several differences that make *all* the difference to the no xsl:script petitioners. Most important, I think, is that the provision of functions in different languages is broken down *first* by functionality and *second* by language rather than (with xsl:script in the XSLT 1.1 WD) *first* by language and *second* by functionality. This is comforting because it puts the emphasis on portability, on having multiple implementations of the same function. Next is the redirection that's required - from an xsl:script (or xsl:library) element to an implementation-independent library (xbind:module), to the implementations themselves. That adds an important extra level of modularity because a new implementation of a function can be slotted in without having to do anything to the stylesheet. Again, that aids portability. Finally, I think there's an appeal in the fact that the code itself is not embedded in the stylesheet. I think there's an aesthetic appeal to that, but it can also make it easier to understand what's going on. I've lost count of the times that people who write Javascript functions within (HTML) script elements think that they think are accessible within the stylesheet. It would be nice to be able to just be able to say 'no Javascript in your stylesheet is executable'. What are the benefits that you see to the current xsl:script definition as opposed to the idea of a separate binding? There are obviously a couple: all this redirection will make the stylesheet a little slower, and it's quite a bit more tedious to use an extension function (although some might count that as a good thing). Why else is xsl:script better? Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Steve Muench | Thread | Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Steve Muench |
RE: [xsl] xml:output encoding as i, Ben Robb | Date | [xsl] Debugging tool for XSLT, Raj Avula |
Month |