W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Congrats on the latest WD ::: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xslt20 -20011220/

From: cutlass <cutlass@secure0.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:37:07 -0000
Message-ID: <002701c1a014$75e163a0$9e01a8c0@ROSEBUD>
To: <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Hello Jeni,

[comments snipped]

> But now I'm stuck. I want my stylesheet to work across processors, but
> each processor has its own way of doing the association from the
> stylesheet to the implementation. I have to use saxon:script for

I think that the only way to allow for 'common' processing between
processors is to define core functionality for XSLT
- Native XSLT functions are fine
- XSLT has 'enough' in its core to be usable ( node-set function, possible
dynamic XPATH eval(), etc)
- Language binding has been resolved for all XML Processors
- Extension Functions will reduce as the external world starts providing
$inputs into XSLT

Otherwise the only way 2 different implementators are going to agree on a
3rd party extension is that they get some sort of common definition of this
function ( remind u of something ).

essentially extension functions are also an example of the 'code' leading
the data, instead of the having data driven processes; for example; why
doesnt the operating system give a directory listing as a Transquery ( yes
yes, someday ) input ?

as for the different implementations for EXSLT, i think that we have gotton
a lot further then most people, just with a formally agreed upon metadata
format for defining functions. The main reason why there are different
implementations is once again the ommission of 3-4 functions. XSLT/XPATH 2.0
addresses these missing functions or introduces new concepts.

chow, jim fuller
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 06:42:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:52 GMT