Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

> |   Extension functions specify particular functionality
> |   be carried out, and do not specify an implementation.
> 
> This holds for built-in extensions.
> 
> In addition to supporting built-in extensions, many popular
> processors support a built-in extension element that
> allows users to create their own user-written extension 
> functions in any namespace.
> 
> This latter case is the case that <xsl:script> is trying
> to standardize. Binding a user-written implementation to
> a namespace. The <xsl:script> element could just as well
> be called:
> 
> <xsl:associate-user-written-extension-function-implementation-with-namespace/>

I don't understand.  Do you mean msxml:script?

I hardly think that association helps your case.

> |   Scripts are embedded code of a completely different language
> |   with it's own interpreter, etc.
> 
> |   Thus, enumeration of additional required
> |   functionality is a very hard problem.
> 
> What's needed is to specify the various contracts
> at the boundary points between the XSLT processor
> and the extension function implementation language 
> environment. These are the concrete details provided
> in XSLT 1.1 for IDL/DOM2, Java/DOM2, and ECMAScript DOM2
> bindings.

xsl:script is a matter of technical argument.  The language binding issue is 
where politics comes in.  There is no doubt that XSLT 1.1 as is creates a 
caste system of languages.

If Java developers decide to standardize such bindings, or ECMAScript or 
Python developers for that matter, why don't they do so in a separately 
layered specification?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list