[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Evan Lenz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:10:25 -0600
"My problem with xsl:script is that it makes extensions look like something
other than extensions. And despite all the arguments I've heard that say
that it will not encourage people to include procedural code when they
otherwise would not, I believe that it certainly will encourage them to do
My problem with scriptable extensions is having to-the-metal programmers
who discover that feature and use it rather than learning the rest of
the language. Unfortunately, we are also finding they often do need to
do things the current implementation doesn't do or have to communicate
with business objects.
"My main objection to the Jav and ECMA bindings are that they pollute the
main XSLT spec and are given unseemly prominence therein, rather than
being completely relegated to an appendix, as in the DOM binding."
Bindings should be in annexes, in my opinion, but where they are normative
("if you do this, do it this way") they have to be prominent annexes. I
don't like seeing a Sun product favored, but Sun got out there early with
decent VM-based language and people are using it. One has to ask if that
is a good reason to give it prominence but replies will vary. I suspect
MS will have to write their own for C#. Popularity contests are a rotten
way to write a spec or a standard but this won't be the first time that has
But I am concerned that getting rid of the extension element altogether
the baby out with the bathwater. This issue of extensibility and component
support is bedeviling a lot of web app languages these days. An almost
one for one duplicate of this is raging on the VRML list. On one side,
some want no extensions. On the other some demand extensions. On one
side, XML means are being argued for. On the other, exclusive VRML
means (Protos and scripts) are argued for. All I can conclude from
this is that scripts are the preferred means of extending a language
where one can't wait for a new version from the politburo. Given that,
I don't see how you can ask them to remove it. You can ask for them
to label it as a wart but they won't do that.
It seems best to ask for that, but expect a compromise such as relabeling
or rewriting to deemphasize the binding or to make it clear this is not
de facto standardization of two vendor products. Results and perceptions
vary but I don't see a good alternative.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h