Evan Lenz 

> This is exactly the understanding that most people have of 
> xsl:script--that
> it provides new functionality. While they are wrong, I think 
> this reinforces
> the fact that xsl:script is and will continue to be 
> misunderstood. It does
> not look like an extension, and despite the insistence that 
> xsl:script does
> not encourage the inclusion of procedural code, it implicitly 
> and undeniably
> does. As I said before, the mechanisms are already there for 
> people to hang
> themselves on assignment statements; xsl:script just pushes 
> them over the
> ledge.

Good summary Evan.
Despite David C's rational explanations that its 'better' than 1.0,
or at least tidier with some advantages,
the perception is quite different. 
 I wonder if the WG are interested in this (less than technical) view?

Regards DaveP

 

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