RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
That's the difference between an environment you do control (your server so no problem) and one you don't (the web if not your server). The VRML vendor knows if it is an extension. They ask you to download their implementation. If they don't have one, they usually inform you and try to make it run as best as they can. Sometimes, they can't and that is the author's problem. They don't usually give a choice of implementation because they assume if they made the extension, they have the code and if there are alternatives, it isn't an extension but a pre-standard feature they can handle. They are also very good (because we beat them up daily) about negotiating the syntax among themselves once something looks popular. We live in a smaller universe. For the first time, this is a blessing it seems. It could be the difference between a language considered a niche and one that is too popular to grow sensibly because there are just too many cooks. But so far, the XSL extension proposal looks like what I expect and have seen work successfully for other languages on the web. When waiting is not an option, the only recourse is scheduled negotiation for proven features. Otherwise you are back to waiting for godot. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Steve Muench [mailto:Steve.Muench@o...] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:59 PM To: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1 Simon, | >information you'd want to stage, but I don't envision the | >XSLT processor firing up modal dialogs or web browsers in the | >middle of stylesheet execution to allow the user to "Please pick | >which implementation of this function you'd like to use..." | >before continuing along its merry way with the current transformation. | | Actually, that's exactly what I'd like to see happen if the style sheet is | run in an environment which supports such functionality. In the (extremely | likely) event that it runs in an environment which doesn't support such | functionality, default mapping could avoid all the modal dialog boxes. then we're definitely thinking about different environments. Most of my transformations run inside server-side publishing frameworks or server-side database processing or server-side B2B XML message transformation. I test my transformations (and occasionally the extensions they may need to depend on) before putting them in production and don't want runtime "surprises". I can see that from a command-line in a document production environment or from within a visual XSL tool, such user-interaction might be desireable. Disclaimer: Speaking personally and not for the XSL WG or Oracle. ______________________________________________________________ Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format