[Fwd: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT1.1]

[Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>]

I apologize for the confusion.  I'll look into amending the petition text
without disrupting anyone viewing or signing it.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:18:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>
To: xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
CC: script Petitioners <no-xsl-script@clarkevans.com>

I'd like to point out, and possibly repair a factoid bug
in the petition.

> 7. With the new extension function language binding clauses
> and recent changes to the DOM specification, it appears that
> the W3C strongly favors Java and Javascript over other
> equally qualified languages.  We would prefer language
> neutrality.

In particular, the DOM specification had Java and ECMA Script
bindings in the first version.  Thus "recent changes" above
is incorrect, this unfortunately (my fault) was not fixed
ealier.  IMHO, the above paragraph should read:

> 7. With the new extension function language binding in XSLT 1.1
> draft and the Java and ECMA binding appendix of the DOM
> specification, it appears that the W3C strongly favors Java and
> Javascript over other equally qualified languages.  We would prefer
> language neutrality.

Very sorry,

Clark

P.S.  Uche, can we have a 'known bugs' section?  *sigh*


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python