[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] 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
|