[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
- From: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@oracle.com>
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:51:49 -0800
| On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
| > This reponse contains your own personal inferences
| > and conclusions that have no direct bearing on what the
| > XSLT 1.1 WD says. My comments were that the mechanism
| > is designed to allow any language. Anyone reading
| > the spec can verify the two points that I made.
| The XSLT 1.1 WD xsl:script construct allows specific
| ECMA Script code and specific references to specific
| Java package names as a method to name extension functions.
<xsl:script> itself, allows *any* language's code,
not just ecmascript and java. I consider separately
the question of whether the XSL 1.1 WD should change
to allow *only*
<xsl:script language="java | ecmascript | QName-but-not-NCName">
removing the two "shortcut/builtin" names.
| The xsl:script construct makes no attempt to handle
| multiple language bindings for the same functionality.
It actually does. Please reread section 14.4 starting with the text:
"If there are multiple xsl:script elements with the
same namespace URI but different implementation languages,
then each implementation language corresponds to an
alternative implementation of the same extension functions."
It has made an attempt to deal with multiple languages.
Whether you like the approach it has taken is another
matter entirely :-)
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