This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer ofindirection
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] xbind:module == xsl:script + an essential layer ofindirection
- From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce at clarkevans dot com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:42:16 -0500 (EST)
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Steve, Thank you for your continued conversation.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> I don't understand how the "URI-to-ResourceContainingXBindModule"
> binding takes place. How does the processor "hook up" with
> its XBindModule definition? From where does it fetch it the
> first time? Does it periodically ping for updates?
I listed several levels of "hook-up" in the e-mail, you
neglected to discuss the first few: (1) build-in,
(2) local-catalogue, (3) stylesheet-provided, (4)
ask-the-user, and instead focused only on the RDDL
based binding mechanism, which I refer you to the
RDDL discussion for more detail.
> This, I believe, is a red herring. URI's are URI's.
Where in the xsl:script spec is a URI provided
to identify the functionality described? There
is a prefix, and this is not a global URI. Also
there is a "src", and this is not a language
independent URI and must be missing when the
script code is included in the stylesheet. So,
What am I missing? Where is this
implementation-independent-uri in the 1.1 Draft?
> The prefix referenced by <xsl:script implements-prefix="foo">
> would be assigned to this globally-unique namespace URI
> at the top of the stylesheet or directly on the <xsl:script>
> element itself, depending on the developer's preference.
I think you are digging here. This URI is for the prefix,
not for the module, and in the example it says "uri.any".
This is hardly a uri representing the functionalty
provided.
> I think that your saying that a hastily-selected,
> for-all-intents-and-purposes-temporary URI used
> with <xsl:script> is different from a responsibly-selected
> URI used with the xbind. Which I agree with. However,
> both can be used with responsibly-selected namespace URI's.
Ok. So you are saying, given
<stylesheet
xmlns:prfix="my-unique-uri-identifying-functionality"
>
<script implements-prefix="prfix" language="java" src="..." />
...
A processor, could use the resoultion I put forth earlier,
for "my-unique-uri-identifying-functionality" without even
using the "script" Could I even remove "script" altoghether then?
And make the "script" binding stuff _seperate_ from XSLT
in with it's own registry/biding mechanism?
Clark
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list