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-xs lt20 -20011220/

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:42:02 +0100
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210622B91C@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Cc: "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>, Raja Cherukuri <raja.cherukuri@telera.com>
> What I imagined was that xsl:script would have a language attribute
> that takes a qualified name that indicates the language binding for
> the relevant implementation. Taking the example you gave, I'd like it
> to be:
> 
> <xsl:script namespace="some" language="saxon:java"
>             class="my.extension.class.SaxonWrapper" />
>             
> <xsl:script namespace="some" language="xalan:java"
>             class="my.extension.class.XalanWrapper" />
> 
> <xsl:script namespace="some" language="msxsl:jscript">
>   function extension {
>     do it!
>   }
> </xsl:script>
> 
But if we don't define the language bindings, then how can we say anything
useful in the spec about the semantics of the "class" attribute?

We did try this approach, taking out the language bindings but leaving
<xsl:script> in. But it makes too many assumptions about the way in which
language bindings are likely to work in different implementations.

If two implementations do agree on a binding mechanism, then they can also
agree on a <common:script> element to define the binding, or one processor
can emulate the binding mechanism defined by a different processor (there's
nothing to stop a non-Microsoft processor implementing <msxsl:script> as
defined by Microsoft).

Mike Kay
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 07:42:06 GMT

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