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

Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

Subject: Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
From: "Steve Muench" <Steve.Muench@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:30:04 -0800
xsl script c
| 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


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.