Re: XSL with scripting

[info@xxxxxxxxxx (Flow Simulation)]

Oren Ben-Kiki <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I don't think this is a simple yes/no question. We already "know" a lot of
>people would like some sort of scripting support (if my survey is an
>indication of anything, for example :-), but which form should it take,
>exactly? Consider ....
.......thought provoking comparison of scripting design options snipped.....

and also Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I strongly doubt that the W3C
>is going to put much faith in a vote on a deeply technical design issue
>from people who are not privy to the discussions that led to the current
>design.

I think this is a requirement issue rather than a technical design issue.
Is some kind of escape to scripting a requirement?   Yes or no?
If the answer is yes, then the technical details can be addressed,
along with the correct tradeoff between functionality and complexity of the
scripting support mechanism.   Right now it isn't there at all - not in the
standard anyway!

Counted 1 vote for (scripting) and 1 against so far....

Bill Ayers (BillA@xxxxxxxxxx)


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