• From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:18:07 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:11:41, Francis Norton wrote:
>Steve Muench? wrote:
>> <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?

Is this the best argument for removing <xsl:script> from XSLT: it isn't
necessary?  Less is more.

In any case, it seems only right to treat all languages equally.

take it easy,
Charles Reitzel

• Prev by Date: Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
• Next by Date: Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*
• Previous by thread: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by thread: [Fwd: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT1.1]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread