[Fwd: Re: XSLT 1.1 comments (fwd)]
Clark C. Evans <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> asked me to post this to the list for him: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:19:53 -0500 (EST) From: Clark C. Evans <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: XSLT 1.1 comments On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Carlisle wrote: > > If I use tags that are not in the XSL namespace then its not 100% xsl is it. > > its XSL + saxon extensions. Its still valid XSL but its not 100% pure BC > > grown XSL. > > that is still true with 1.1's xsl:script. If you don't use functions or > elements in an extension namespace then the xsl file is portable. No > matter how many xsl:script elements you might have used. It seems that many of us think that extension functions are "acceptable", where xsl:script is a horse of a completely different color: Extension functions specify particular functionality be carried out, and do not specify an implementation. For each extension function, a small and seperate specification can be laid out describing the intent of the function. Implementations can provide this functionality *independent* of the language the XSLT processor is written in. With an extension function, I can enumerate what exact functions are needed; this implies that it is completely acceptable to implement just a few functions of a given type. Scripts are embedded code of a completely different language with it's own interpreter, etc. Certainly one could write an implementation of each interpreter independent of the language; but writing function vs writing a full-fledged interpreter is a big leap in complexity. With scripts, it is implied that a full implementation of the interpreter is availabele. Thus, enumeration of additional required functionality is a very hard problem. As such, extension functions provide a nice "layer" between the XSLT script and the transform; with scripts the layering is given up altogether. I think scripts are an ill-advised move, all bets at cross-platform compatibilty go out the door. Many people want scripts beacuse the "modulization" abilities of XSLT leave alot to be desired, i.e., making a template and calling a template are just too verbose. This seperate issue can be solved by an additional namespace "xf" with the following behavior: Anywhere, except as a child of "xsl:template", <xf:func x="y" /> is equivalent to <xsl:call-template name="func"> <xsl:with-param name="x" select="y" /> </xsl:call-template> and when a child of xsl:template, <xf:func x="y"> is equivalent to <xsl:template name="func"> ... <xsl:param name="x" </xf:func> select="y" /> ... </xsl:template> Clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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