Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:57:27 -0700 |
> > 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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji | Date | Re: [xsl] XPath over DOM, Kaganovich, Yevgeniy |
Month |