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

["Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> I (personally, not speaking for the WG here) don't happen to
> be a believer in some kind of look-it-up-and-magically-download-
> the-right-(trusted?)-implementation-from-some-central-website-
> for-the-language-my-processor-can-support-for-the-chip-architecture-
> and-OS-that-I'm-currently-running-(while-I'm-using-this-on-a-plane)
> scheme to download and run the "right" implementation of some function.

You have taken my point to a level of absurdity.  I'm offering
a suggestion to avoid language specific stylesheets.  This
is my primary concern.

For Java, there is a lookup mechanism, the java package name
that can be used to "identify" an implementation.  For OLE
objects one has the type libraries, and can create an object
dynamically.  

There is a trend here.  Why does this have to be a XSLT 
specific thing?   Why not a seperate W3C specification 
which lays out the structure of an XML file containing
the description of a function, it's arguments, it's purpose,
documentation, and *then* language specific 'creation
descriptions for each language.  

Then, XSLT stylesheet  could ask for one of these functions 
via handle, and the processor could supply the appropriate
implementation (or fail if one isn't available).    If 
an implementation isn't available, then so be it.  At least
this way, there is an opaque, generic interface between
the stylesheet and the extension function that would 
allow for third-parties to provide equivalent functionality
from different languages.  

> <xsl:script>'s whole purpose in life is binding
> one or more specific implementations of extension 
> functions to a namespace.

Right, and it is the "specific" part of the sentance
above that is causing me problems.

...

Also, you've missed one of the biggest points here,
xslt is a very new language, and xsl:script is just
too pre-mature.  Why not see where standardized 1.0 
extension functions could take us before we jump
in head first, no?

Kind Regards,

Clark