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

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Umm... VRML apps do precisely that.  See ParallelGraphics 
Cortona.   Works wonderfully. People actually do download 
the component, it gets cached, and on we go.  Items like 
NURBs got implemented and after some shaking, they are 
going into the next version of the standard (VRML really 
is a Standard.  ISO sez so and the ISOPhilistines agree. 
Dang.  The process worked.  Weeeee!  Next....)

The problem was enabling the vendors to develop 
provable solutions in the time honored "running code" 
proof while waiting for the spec to be updated.   

In the middle of an XSLT stylesheet? 

Maybe not smart but not undoable.   Dealer's choice.  
A bigger problem involves impolite installs that stomp 
the last set of associations without asking, and 
that awful "PLEASE let me be your 
current player for zed files" dialog that has 
to be NO'ed over and over and over.

Embedding ties one to code that can be gotten, 
cached or is there.  That's all.  Otherwise, 
the app fails.  Dealer's choice; Buyer's chagrin.

But choice over the straitjacket.  If Java is 
the only choice, some other language supporters 
didn't do their bit.  I can safely assume some 
are.  C# will be a nice alternative.  At least, 
it's a choice.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@knowscape.com]

>The implements-prefix="foo" points to a specific *namespace* URI
>for the function "library". A human-assisted process to download
>the right bits would only need this NS Uri as a key into whatever
>information you'd want to stage, but I don't envision the
>XSLT processor firing up modal dialogs or web browsers in the
>middle of stylesheet execution to allow the user to "Please pick
>which implementation of this function you'd like to use..."
>before continuing along its merry way with the current transformation.

Obviously, I don't envision modal dialogs and whatnot to ask the user
permission to get the extension. Simply, if the extension module is not
present and the processor hasn't been configured to download it
automatically, then it dies requesting it's dependency. If it has been
configured to automatically download extensions then it uses the RDDL
document to get the most appropriate module.