Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
| and alternatively: | | -> if two conforming XSLT 1.1 processor implementations both | have elected to implement the C++ language for extension | functions, then developers can expect that ... | Really, what can we expect in this case? At a minimum, they can expect exactly what they can expect in XSLT 1.0, that is, nothing. Doing better than that, XSLT 1.1 provides an extensible <xsl:script> mechanism for vendors to cooperate to agree on a common C++ language binding, with a common QName that describes the binding and which can be used in the <xsl:script language="QName"> construct. If the vendors do *not* want to cooperate to come up with a C++ specific binding that they share, then they are in the same situation as with XSLT 1.0. Net net, XSLT 1.1 neither promotes nor hinders this from happening, but it provides a new mechanism to make it possible, should it be the will of the web community. | > ... Microsoft's | > MSXSL3 and Unicorn which both might offer only ECMAScript language. | > | | They both are going to offer C# extensions as well. Great. You will have the choice of implementing a standard C# language binding, or two each go your own way depending on which option is best for your mutual business needs. This is the same as for Java and ECMAScript. As I mentioned in my previous post, you *always* have the option of going your own way, that is, by creating your own language="Qname" that describes your binding. | I am wondering - how will they manage to get interoperable | implementations? If you agree on a binding, and agree on a Qname to describe that language binding, then they will, independent of the W3C. <xsl:script language="SomeCommonOrg:csharp"> If you do not choose to agree on a binding, you'll both provide your own distinct QName's for the language: <xsl:script language="ms:csharp"> <xsl:script language="unicorn:c-sharp"> Perhaps mutual customer feedback on the importance or lack thereof of stylesheet portability might influence the two (or more) parties one way or the other? Not sure. | Maybe, XSLT 1.1 will help them? Again, XSLT 1.1 offers no magic to compel companies to agree on bindings. It offers three standard DOM2-based bindings (IDL/DOM2, ECMAScript/DOM2, and Java/DOM2) and leaves the door open for the W3C or external organizations to create more as the market demands. ______________________________________________________________ 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/ 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