• From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,"Clark C. Evans" <cce@c...>
• Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:13:48 -0800

Len Bullard wrote:
> Why did they insist on embedding?

I presume because certain implementors (Microsoft and maybe some others that
I'm not aware of) already provided embedding functionality. This was, at
least eventually, implemented in full conformance to the existing XSLT 1.0
extension mechanisms. In XSLT 1.1, the Microsoft XSLT processor will be able
to use xsl:script instead of just msxsl:script. That means that other
processors may use the same namespace (the XSLT namespace) to implement the
same functionality, making embedded scripting slightly less non-portable.

While I also have qualms about embedding scripting from a software design
standpoint, arguments about the relative merit of doing so will not persuade
the W3C to remove xsl:script, because they will just point to the
misunderstanding of the issue. "We're not providing new
functionality"--which is true. Many people caught up in this debate don't
recognize this.

Evan

• References:
  • RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• 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