[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: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@oracle.com>,"Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:13:19 -0600
That's the difference between an environment
you do control (your server so no problem) and one you don't
(the web if not your server).
The VRML vendor knows if it is an extension. They ask
you to download their implementation. If they
don't have one, they usually inform you and
try to make it run as best as they can. Sometimes,
they can't and that is the author's problem. They don't usually
give a choice of implementation because they assume if they made the
extension, they have the code and if there are alternatives,
it isn't an extension but a pre-standard feature
they can handle. They are also very good (because
we beat them up daily) about negotiating the syntax
among themselves once something looks popular.
We live in a smaller universe. For the first
time, this is a blessing it seems.
It could be the difference between a language
considered a niche and one that is too popular
to grow sensibly because there are just too
many cooks. But so far, the XSL extension proposal
looks like what I expect and have seen work
successfully for other languages on the web.
When waiting is not an option, the only
recourse is scheduled negotiation for
proven features. Otherwise you are
back to waiting for godot.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Steve Muench [mailto:Steve.Muench@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:59 PM
To: Simon St.Laurent; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT
| >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.
| Actually, that's exactly what I'd like to see happen if the style sheet is
| run in an environment which supports such functionality. In the
| likely) event that it runs in an environment which doesn't support such
| functionality, default mapping could avoid all the modal dialog boxes.
then we're definitely thinking about different environments.
Most of my transformations run inside server-side publishing
frameworks or server-side database processing or server-side
B2B XML message transformation. I test my transformations
(and occasionally the extensions they may need to depend on)
before putting them in production and don't want runtime
I can see that from a command-line in a document production
environment or from within a visual XSL tool, such user-interaction
might be desireable.
Disclaimer: Speaking personally and not for the XSL WG or Oracle.
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
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: email@example.com