- From: Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 03:24:31 -0400
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
See also a similar request in an older thread on xproc-dev: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2012Jan/0023.html There is, I believe, also a similar entry in the XProcVNext wiki. But what about simply allowing to use XProc steps as XPath extension functions? That seems like a more robust and idiomatic solution than introducing "magic" mechanisms for native importing of XSLT/XQuery/whatnot modules. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech > -----Original Message----- > From: James Fuller [mailto:jim@webcomposite.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:31 AM > To: Alex Milowski > Cc: XProc WG > Subject: Re: Yet Another V2 Request: Extension Functions via XSLT 2 > > On 8 August 2013 02:36, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote: > > Let me explain the use case a bit better. I have documents that are > > typed, often on the root element, with specific RDFa types. The > > derived type is computed against the @vocab attribute (and others) > > along with the @typeof attribute. I want to expose an extension > > function so I can do something like this: > > > > <p:choose> > > <p:when test="rdfa:is-type(/*,'http://example.com/Book')"> > > > So, I really just want a way in p:library to declare these functions. > > I could imagine just importing an XSLT library directly but I wonder > > whether that is technical feasible given existing implementations. > > its an interesting idea and I think it would leverage other XML > technologies reuse mechanisms. In MarkLogic land, allowing XSLT to > import xquery modules proves to be a big winner and I suspect the > reverse would be true as well. > > We could consider overloading p:import to be able to load in functions, > in the scope of the current pipeline or a p:import in a p:library. Heck > ... why not javascript as well or whatever else an impl may decide ? We > could add a content-type attribute as the means for unambiguously > identifying function library. > > For example, with the xproc impl I am working on, it would be > straightforward to load in xquery modules whose functions could be made > available, though I don't know how this would work with XSLT and would > have to tinker about calabash/saxon as an example to fully understand > how an impl would achieve this. > > J >
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 07:25:10 UTC