Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?

Subject: Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?
From: Joe English <jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:26:29 -0800
Michael Kay wrote:

> The primary reason is to allow users to write extension functions that are
> portable between one XSLT processor and another, as opposed to the current
> situation where extensions written for Saxon don't work with Xalan. I still
> find it hard to understand why this should be thought such an undesirable
> objective.

AIUI, nobody is objecting to standardized bindings for extensions;
I think the issue is that <xsl:script> allows (and some say encourages)
authors to embed extension functions _in the stylesheet itself_.

I'd bet that if <xsl:script> were removed entirely but Annex C
"DOM-Based Language Bindings" left intact, there wouldn't be
nearly as much contention.

(Personally, I don't object to <xsl:script/>.  It would let
me write Java{Script}-capable-implementation-specific stylesheets
instead of Saxon-specific stylesheets, which is a step in the
right direction at least.  I'd be happiest if everyone just
agreed to use the same name name for vendor extensions that
implement the same functionality though.  Oh, and if everyone
implemented <saxon:group> while they were at it.  That would save
me some work :-)


--Joe English

  jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread