I believe that these paragraphs contradict each other:

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> If ECMAScript where included in the XSL spec there would be no need for you
> to learn another language, you could simply ignore the scripting and stick
> with the XSL. From what I can see the only thing being suggested by
> proponents of scripting within XSL is that it be there as an escape hatch
> for those who feel it necessary, not that it should replace or indeed even
> address any of the functional goals of XSL. So this need not effect you.
> 
...

> And if your concern is the adultaration of a simple declaritive style
> language, I would suggest that by the time XSL has been stretched to
> encompass all the possible occurances that occur infrequently, that could
> be left to a scripting language, your XSL sill loose all of it's original
> simplicity and elegance.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"In spite of everything I still believe that people are basically 
good at heart." - Anne Frank


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list