Re: Requirements draft

[Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kent Fitch wrote:
> 
> - functions such as strong typing, O-O and exception handling are
>   really useful when you start implementing larger scripts

These same features are what make Java probably beyond the abilities of
many of the people XSL is supposed to appeal to. If XSL is going to use a
non-scripting language, it should stick with Scheme (a la DSSSL), which is
much more appropriate for conversion tasks than a strictly OO, statically
typed language like Java.

JavaScript is a good compromise with its functional paradigm, ease of use,
ease of implementation, popularity and Java/C/C++-style syntax.

On the other hand, I believe that XSL should be specified in two levels.
One should be "language independent execution model" and the other should
be "binding to ECMAScript." Every implementation should be required to
support the ECMAScript binding, but it should be possible to supply
others.

Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"A writer is also a citizen, a political animal, whether he likes it or 
not. But I do not accept that a writer has a greater obligation 
to society than a musician or a mason or a teacher. Everyone has
a citizen's commitment."  - Wole Soyinka, Africa's first Nobel Laureate



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