Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:27:15 GMT
 > NO! They can't that is what I was trying to say.

> Yes they can.  Language-independent interfaces have a long pedigree:
> see COM, CORBA, and many application CLIs. 

I'm not saying there couldn't be one. I'm saying there isn't one in
XSLT 1.0 as it stands today.

But there are two separate threads happening. 

Some people (including yourself) are arguing that the mechanism
suggested for having a common binding syntax with xsl:script is bad
and should be changed. That is a reasonable argument but not something
that really I feel I should join in on. Argue your case with Mike K or
James C etc (it's better to argue with them anyway as they are on the WG
and so might actually change something:-)

Actually I don't mind _how_ extension functions get bound so long as I
don't have to litter my stylesheet with massive switches or fallback
nestings for each processor. If you come up with a good solution and get
the WG to agree with it, I'm happy.

However there seemed to be a larger argument that argued
that xsl:script is about introducing scripting, and therefore a bad
thing. This I think is simply wrong and mislead by the name of the
element. xsl:script does not introduce any kind of extension
functionality that was not there before, it just normalises the method
of binding that functionality to extension function names.
So while I agree that programming in any language that lets you say
x=x+1 is clearly an evil affront to the consistency of Mathematics,
I don't think that xsl:script encourages this behaviour.


This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread