[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: Francis Norton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:11:41 +0000
Steve Muench wrote:
> | On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Steve Muench wrote:
> | > 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.
> | The XSLT 1.1 WD xsl:script construct allows specific
> | ECMA Script code and specific references to specific
> | Java package names as a method to name extension functions.
> <xsl:script> itself, allows *any* language's code,
> not just ecmascript and java. I consider separately
> the question of whether the XSL 1.1 WD should change
> to allow *only*
> <xsl:script language="qname-but-not-ncname">
> instead of
> <xsl:script language="java | ecmascript | QName-but-not-NCName">
> removing the two "shortcut/builtin" names.
I don't consider this a separate question - to me, it is the single most
obnoxious aspect of xsl:script. If you make this change, what does
compelling advantage does xsl:script offer over community-based
extensions such as exsl?