Subject: Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer of indirection From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 02:07:00 -0500 (EST) |
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote: > The only difference is that with the current <xsl:script> > proposal, if you list three languages for the same > namespace uri, then you save a little typing by doing: > > <xsl:stylesheet xmlns:date="http://datestuff.com/xslt/extensions"> > <xsl:script implements-prefix="date" language="lang:yyyy" > src="http://datestuff.com/xslt/extension/impl/dates.xyz"/> > src="http://datestuff.com/xslt/extension/impl/dates.xyz"/> > > whereas with your proposal, you repeat the namespace uri > each time instead of using its shortcut/prefix name: > > <xsl:stylesheet> > <xsl:script implements="http://datestuff.com/xslt/extensions" > language="lang:yyyy" > src="http://datestuff.com/xslt/extension/impl/dates.xyz"/> First, this syntax makes a big difference, it is not merely syntax sugar. With implements="a-unique-uri" I can now put all of my scripts in a module and share this module across the organization. With implements-prefix="prefix", I have to coordinate prefixes across my enterprise in order to have a central set of scripts? Yuck. Talk about a maintance nightmare. Second, more than just this syntax change is needed. I had posted earlier an entire "resolution" mechanism, from built-in, to local-catalogue, to in-stylesheet, to rddl-download, to ask-user. This syntax only addresses one part of the resolution, the in-stylesheet type resolution (and perhaps the local-catalogue method). In this proposal, a <xsl:script isn't even needed. Just a xmlns:prefix="..". If the processor understands the built-in prefix, then great, no implementation required! Otherwise, this uri could be used to search for local implementations in a local catalogue (for instance, the window's registry). Failing that, it could always use the RDDL or similar protocol (and, once again, I refer you to those discussions for the relevant arguments and counter arguments). Third, I would also ask that the "script" element is given a prefix of "bind" and a completely different URI. Why? So that this same mechanism can be re-used by other specifications. This does not have to be a XSLT only solution, I'm sure every specification needs some sort of function binding. Fourth, this bind element should also have a IDL version which describes the signature of the module being imported. This is needed to syncronize an interface across multiple implementations from different languages. As a whole, the extension *functionality* is what is primary, not a particualr implementation *script*. Is this at all clear? Clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:scrip, Steve Muench | Thread | Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:scrip, Jeni Tennison |
Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Steve Muench | Date | Re: [xsl] RDDL as a delivery vehicl, Clark C. Evans |
Month |