OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1

| I don't think any of the petitioners seriously doubts the 
| importance of the extension mechanism.  The difficulty is that
| xsl:script does extension by "embedding" rather than through
| a component interface which can be language independent.

Clark, this is a slight misrepresentation of what the XSLT 1.1 WD says.

The <xsl:script> *permits* both embedding or use-by-reference.

   <!-- by reference -->
   <xsl:script implements-prefix="uche" language="qname" src="uri"/>

   <!-- by embedding -->
   <xsl:script implements-prefix="evans" language="qname">

The body of the XSLT 1.1 WD specifies no language-dependent features.

A given language binding decides whether embedding, reference,
or both makes sense for that language. It's not stipulated
by the body of the XSLT 1.1 spec.

The Java language binding in appendix C does not allow
embedding, so I'm not sure where Uche's fear of
seeing "embedded Java code" comes from.

(You may argue about the inclusion of shortcut language names
 like "javascript" and "java" which has been discussed at length
 on xsl-list and here, so I'm not talking about this point.
 Assuming language="qname" was the only possibility, there is
 nothing language specific in the body of the draft)

The contracts that the XSLT engine has with the extension
function implementation is completely the responsibility
of each language binding. The language bindings are
relegated to appendices.

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