Subject: RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1 From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:26:28 -0800 |
Eric van der Vlist wrote: > Your text is so exhaustive that it's difficult to agree with all the > bullet points ;=) ... I also couldn't agree wholesale with every aspect of the petition, or that I would have worded things the same way; but the conclusion I come to is the same, and by similar reasoning. However, I think it would help our case if it made more clear the fact that we understand that xsl:script technically adds no new functionality, because implementors already are able to support embedded scripting using the standard extension mechanisms (eg. msxsl:script). Thus a good analogy Joerg Pietschmann: > Having said this, well, the only motive for withholding xsl:script > would be to prevent innocent users from shooting themselves. However, > as everybody, including, but not limited to, the evil empire, already > hand out shotguns, we could legalise shotguns as well. And an equally grim one by me earlier: > As I said before, the mechanisms are already there for people to hang > themselves on assignment statements; xsl:script just pushes them over > the ledge. (http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200102/msg00928.html) So perhaps, Uche, you could state more clearly up-front that we understand this distinction. Thanks, Evan XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to wit, Eric van der Vlist | Thread | RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to wit, Chris Bayes |
RE: [xsl] avoiding repeated items, Don Bruey | Date | RE: [xsl] XML to WML/CHTML example , Tapan Nanawati |
Month |