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

Re: xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer of

Subject: Re: xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer ofindirection
From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:42:16 -0500 (EST)
Re:  xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer of
Steve,  Thank you for your continued conversation.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> I don't understand how the "URI-to-ResourceContainingXBindModule"
> binding takes place. How does the processor "hook up" with
> its XBindModule definition? From where does it fetch it the
> first time? Does it periodically ping for updates?

I listed several levels of "hook-up" in the e-mail, you
neglected to discuss the first few:  (1) build-in, 
(2) local-catalogue, (3) stylesheet-provided, (4) 
ask-the-user, and instead focused only on the RDDL
based binding mechanism, which I refer you to the
RDDL discussion for more detail.

> This, I believe, is a red herring. URI's are URI's.

Where in the xsl:script spec is a URI provided
to identify the functionality described?  There
is a prefix, and this is not a global URI.  Also
there is a "src", and this is not a language 
independent URI and must be missing when the
script code is included in the stylesheet.  So, 
What am I missing?  Where is this 
implementation-independent-uri in the 1.1 Draft?

> The prefix referenced by <xsl:script implements-prefix="foo">
> would be assigned to this globally-unique namespace URI
> at the top of the stylesheet or directly on the <xsl:script>
> element itself, depending on the developer's preference.

I think you are digging here.  This URI is for the prefix,
not for the module, and in the example it says "uri.any".
This is hardly a uri representing the functionalty
provided.

> I think that your saying that a hastily-selected, 
> for-all-intents-and-purposes-temporary URI used 
> with <xsl:script> is different from a responsibly-selected
> URI used with the xbind. Which I agree with. However,
> both can be used with responsibly-selected namespace URI's. 

Ok.  So you are saying, given

 <stylesheet
    xmlns:prfix="my-unique-uri-identifying-functionality"
 >
   <script implements-prefix="prfix" language="java" src="..." />
   ...

A processor, could use the resoultion I put forth earlier,
for "my-unique-uri-identifying-functionality" without even
using the "script"  Could I even remove "script" altoghether then?

And make the "script" binding stuff _seperate_ from XSLT
in with it's own registry/biding mechanism?

Clark




 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.