Re: RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> | Yes, all the hassle could have been avoided if I'd put the xsl:script
> | in an imported stylesheet.
> 
> Correct. So the only thing you would have in your 50 stylesheets is:
> 
>   <xsl:import href="common-date-functions.xsl"/>
> 
> or, you might depend on some web-hosted version of the library stylesheet,
> at your discretion.
> 
>   <xsl:import href="http://somesite.org/xslt/ext/common-date-functions.xsl"/>
> 
> And so you have the same simplicity of maintenance as the other proposal.

Not quite so fast. 

1) Now you need to now syncronize all of the
   prefixes across your organizaiton.

2) You are still limited to implementations in the 
   languages referenced in this imported style-sheet
   since there are no other resolution mechanisms.  

> I don't follow this.
> 
> An imported stylesheet that just has:
> seems just as much or as much *not* a stylesheet as a stylesheet
> that just has <xsl:script> top-level elements in it. Both are
> legal.

I don't think she is talking about "legal".  The question
is, why can't the "script" element belong to another, non-XSLT
specification.  If it is just an XSLT specification then every
other W3C spec which needs extension function binding will go
out and invent their own mechansim rather than re-use a 
common mechanism.

Clark


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