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

Re: extensions and XSLT 2.0

Subject: Re: extensions and XSLT 2.0
From: Frédéric Laurent <fl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:16:46 +0200
extension list disappeared
On Friday 16 May 2003 17:31, Michael Kay wrote:
> > I've got some questions about element/instruction extensions in the
> > specification of XSLT 2.0.
> > The definition concerning the data mapping between XPath types and
> > java/ecmascript... types, described in the version 1.1 has
> > disappeared.
>
> The decision to abandon the attempt to define language bindings for
> extension functions was made a long time ago, and documented in the XSLT
> 2.0 requirements. There were a number of reasons for the decision. The
> fact that the XSLT 1.1 draft supported Java and ECMAScript, and no other
> languages, was very sensitive politically, both with vendors and with
> users. If you look in the archives of this list you will find the
> evidence of the user side of this, though it was probably the vendor
> side that influenced the working group to make the decision. Another
> factor was that it was becoming clear that XSLT 2.0 would have a much
> richer type system, and that bindings between Java types and XML Schema
> types were not a local matter for the XSL WG to define on its own.
>
> The decision at the time was that standardized language bindings, e.g.
> for Java, would be useful, but they should not be done within W3C and
> should not be part of the XSLT specification. Eventually I hope that
> they might become part of JAXP.

Thanks for your response, this is the confirmation of my reading
of the archives of the list and other articles.

Then I've got 1 concrete question (more in fact, but let's start with it) :

I write an extension element in java with the saxon processor by
implementing the net.sf.saxon.style.ExtensionElementFactory. It works,
and I'm very happy. But then, I have to change the implementation of xslt,
and move to xalan (or any other java processor). 
I've got a problem, haven't I ?
Saxon uses its own interface, and xalan too... So I've got to rewrite
my extension according to the xalan interface.

I thought that XSLT 1.1 would provide independant interfaces (in the same
way that DOM does with the org.w3c.dom.* package) in order to write
portable code. Wouldn't it be more simple and safe for user to have such
a definition ?

The problem is identical if I choose to write my extension element in python
or C... 

Am I wrong ?


-- 
Frédéric Laurent
http://www.opikanoba.org

 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.