[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
They embed in VRML too. The proto is there to declare an interface and they allowed for both external and internal protos with the restriction being a closed namespace for anything in the proto. My arguments were similar to yours a few years ago because I saw embedded Java as a means to make it a Sun-friendly application where others saw it as the "only viable choice". Embedding is ugly to me for the same reason ASP pages are ugly: a ungainly mash of syntaxes and types which most editors puke on so badly one prefers PFE to dialog-propertyBox support. The counter argument was that embedding was "Web-friendly" where the dictum is "reduce connects". The other was that in many cases such as simple interpretive scripting, the author was using a simple PFE interface and needed to keep the script where they could look at it in context of the other code: composability. This is a weak argument in this particular case but when one is keeping a lot of argument names and mapping them in several syntaxes, understandable. I like the RDDL idea because it allows one to locate alternatives, but will that scale and perform? In VRML, we really do have the problem of speed because the extension is talking to an app bound to a framerate appetite. What about XSL? Why did they insist on embedding? Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Clark C. Evans [mailto:cce@c...] I don't think any of the petitioners seriously doubts the importance of the extension mechanism. The difficulty is that xsl:script does extension by "embedding" rather than through a component interface which can be language independent. Thus, an "extension function delivery vehicle" is the baby, it is the embedded scripting that is the bath water.... IMHO, what we need is a way to specify extension components, and then a way to locate (RDDL?) an implementation of a particular extension for a particular language/platform combination. > It seems best to ask for that, but expect a compromise such as relabeling > or rewriting to deemphasize the binding or to make it clear this is not > de facto standardization of two vendor products. Results and perceptions > will vary but I don't see a good alternative. No. I don't think re-writing will do it. Embedding is the problem. Embedding should just be seen as a "implementation delivery vehicle", we can do much better.
|
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
|