Re: ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSL
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Jeni Tennison wrote: > >> How would you like to see the easy distribution of extension > >> functions being addressed? > > > > For me, I'd like to see things like *plucks examples from this > > morning's thinking-in-bath session*: RDF parsers (RDF has multiple > > elements or attribute serialisation options) or - for XSL FO or SVG > > - exsl:text-depth($text, $box-width, $font-name) distributed as exsl > > libraries. > > Sure, but what about distributing extension functions that do things > like returning the current date or working out whether a directory > exists on the file system? Things that can't be done with EXSLT? I had in mind a RDDL  like mechanism where one could ask for a "your-favorite-language" implementation of the "some-uri-reference" extension function. Certainly this means going out to the 'net for implementations. I include by reference all of the caching discussions relted to RDDL. > Or is your position that such things should only be allowable through > (community-based or implementer-based) extension functions? I also think that community-based "extension libraries" would be a complementary mechanism. I view this as a subset of the more dynamic full-fledged RDDL case, as the 'cache is static... ie, you can use RDDL to fetch only those implementations already found in cache. Anyway, this was my thought on the item. I'm sure it's not perfect by any strech. But the point was not added to the petition without thought on its ramifications. ;) Clark  http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/ 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