Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Don Park wrote: > While I understand the arguments behind the petition, I am of > the opinion that removing xsl:script will cause more harm than > good because those who want to add them (i.e. Microsoft) will > just do it, and developers in need of such feature will not > be deterred by its non-standard nature. As majority of XSLT > is currently used on the server-side, demand for performance > and flexibility will triumph over flag waving. Well, even the use of xsl:script is "non-standard" if you consider extension functions to be non-standard. From another perspective, msxsl:script *is* standard, because it properly uses the XSLT 1.0 extension mechanisms. Note that MSXML used to have an element called xsl:script, but this was not standard under any definition of "standard". They changed this, bringing the processor into conformance with XSLT 1.0 by treating it as an extension element (msxsl:script) in another namespace. None of the above, whether standard or not, is portable. That's why I don't like xsl:script. It disguises the non-portability of extensions. Moreover, it further encourages the use of extensions, even though every mechanism needed for implementing extensions, whether embedded scripting in any language you want or vendor's built-in extensions, is already provided in XSLT 1.0. Evan Lenz XYZFind Corp.
|
