Re: New document: Requirements for XSLT 1.1

James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 
>> My opinion is that this requirement is too strict, since it
basically 
>>will kill all non-Java based implementations.

>You're misunderstanding the wording.  It's saying that the XSLT 1.1 
spec
>must define bindings for both Java and ECMAScript, not that XSLT 1.1
>implementations must support both Java and ECMAScript.

I have two questions about these requirements:

1. It seems that the following two requirements contradict each other:
"Language bindings MUST be provided for Java and ECMAScript " 
and
"A processor SHOULD NOT be required to implement the portable extension
function binding for any particular language "

2. Could someone please, explain what is the meaning of "inline
extension function implementation" ("Extension function implementations
MUST be allowed both inline as well as externally ")?

In my understanding an inline implementation of an extension function
will take the source code of this extension function from a node of the
stylesheet (hence inline) and interpret it. This is currently done in
msxml with scripting languages-based extension functions.
However, it seems to me to be obviously prohibitively expensive in
terms of efficiency (speed) to apply a similar inline processing
approach towards a compiled language - based extension function (e.g.
Java-based).

In other words, will inline extension functions written in Java be
allowed and will the processor have to invoke javac before being able
to call this extension function?

Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/


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