[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: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@oracle.com>
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:12:23 -0800
| On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
| > The only requirements it places on their boundless
| > creativity is that they agree:
| > -> On a QName to use to uniquely identify this
| > extension function language binding, and
| > -> The language-specific details of implementing
| > functions using that binding.
Clark Evans wrote:
| -> To only use a processor that suports Java
This reponse contains your own personal inferences
and conclusions that have no direct bearing on what the
XSLT 1.1 WD says. My comments were that the mechanism
is designed to allow any language. Anyone reading
the spec can verify the two points that I made.
You have drawn the additional conclusion that since
the XSLT 1.1 WD provides DOM2+IDL, DOM2+ECMAScript,
and DOM2+Java bindings as appendices, that somehow
this requires implementors to support some/any/all
of these. That draft clearly states that a processor
is not required to do so.
I don't believe there's a need to start another round
of emails that underscore the fact that you *fear* one
might lead to the other. This point of view has been
stated, archived, and been reflected in your petition.
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly