RE: RDDL as a delivery vehicle for XSLT extensions?

: <xbind:module  
:   name="a-language-independent-uri-that-refers-to-functionality">
:   <xbind:function name="format">
:     <xbind:param  name="date"   type="string" />
:     <xbind:param  name="format" type="string" />
:     <xbind:return type="string" />
:     <xbind:comment>
:        This function formats a date in ISO 8601 
:        according to the format string.
:     </xbind:comment>
:     <xbind:implementation 
:        language="java" 
:        package="java:com.example.datestuff.DateRoutines#format"
:     />
:     <xbind:implementation language="javascript">
:       ...
:     </xbind>
:   </xbind:function>
: </xbind:module>
: 
: <exsl:script implements-prefix="date"
:   xbind="a-language-independent-uri-that-refers-to-functionality" />

This looks very cool. I would  suggest that it's better to group by
languages rather than by functions: if I'm using a java-based processor, I'm
not particularly interested in how the perl binding looks, but I would like
to be able to distribute my implementation separately from the module
description. 

<!-- can be made available on date-formatting-module-ns URI, e.g via RDDL
-->
<xbind:module name="date-formatting-module-uri">
  <xbind:function name="format>
     <xbind:param  name="date"   type="string" />
     <xbind:param  name="format" type="string" />
     <xbind:return type="string" />
     <xbind:comment>
        This function formats a date in ISO 8601 
        according to the format string.
     </xbind:comment>
  </xbind:module>
</xbind:package>

<!-- comes with com.example.datestuff package (may or may not be
downloadable from the same namespace uri)
-->
<xbind:bindings xbind="date-formatting-module-uri" laguage="java">
  <xbind:implementation name="format">
	<class src="java:com.example.datestuff.DateRoutines"/>
  </xbind:implementation>
</xbind:implementations>

Here, I assume that anything inside xbind:implementation is specific to the
language for which binding is defined. I'm a little unclear about namespace
usage in attributes, but it seems cleaner to store Java-specific information
as values inside xbind:implementation, rather than its attributes.

BTW, If it were Javascript binding, xbind:implementation may contain [a node
with] actual Javascript code, not just external reference. Is that correct?

- Eugene

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