• From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
• To: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@o...>
• 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?

Francis.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>

• References:
  • Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
    • From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@c...>
  • Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
    • From: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@o...>

• Prev by Date: RE: more grist
• Next by Date: Re: To Buy, or to Build? That is the q...
• Previous by thread: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread