> > Hmm.  Let's see, on the side that insists on language-bound
> > xsl:script are
> > Michael Kay, Steve Muench and Scott Boag.  All Java XSLT
> > implementors, I should add.
> 
> And all getting frequent emails from users saying "why can't I write a Java
> extension that is portable between Xalan and Saxon and Oracle."

I understand this to be the case, but why do you need a heavyweight W3C 
solution to this?  Especially given that the result would disadvantage other 
stylesheet implementors?  Especially given that the result increases the 
coupling between extensions and XSLT?

> > All, it seems, reluctant to
> > pursue standardizing extensions using the existing XSLT 1.0
> > facilities.
> 
> Not in my case as an individual. Nor do I think the group as a whole has any
> reluctance to do this. It just didn't put it top of the list.

I'm glad to be corrected.

Time to start doing something about this.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



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