• From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@c...>
• To: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@o...>
• Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:11:23 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> | The xsl:script construct makes no attempt to handle
> | multiple language bindings for the same functionality.
> 
> It actually does. Please reread section 14.4 starting with the text:
> 
>   "If there are multiple xsl:script elements with the
>    same namespace URI but different implementation languages,
>    then each implementation language corresponds to an 
>    alternative implementation of the same extension functions."
> 
> It has made an attempt to deal with multiple languages.
> Whether you like the approach it has taken is another 
> matter entirely :-)

Yes, I'm aware of that. The thought was not expressed clearly.

The problem with this approach is that the XSLT author must
identify each and every implementation possibility, rather than
referencing a opaque handle which can be registered seperately 
as a catalogue or delegative RDDL mechanism that provides for a 
complete alternation of language options.

Clark

• References:
  • Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
    • From: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@o...>

• Prev by Date: RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread