Subject: RE: [xsl] xsl:script and side-effects (more XSLT 1.1 comments) From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:23:44 -0000 |
Evan Lenz > This is exactly the understanding that most people have of > xsl:script--that > it provides new functionality. While they are wrong, I think > this reinforces > the fact that xsl:script is and will continue to be > misunderstood. It does > not look like an extension, and despite the insistence that > xsl:script does > not encourage the inclusion of procedural code, it implicitly > and undeniably > does. 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. Good summary Evan. Despite David C's rational explanations that its 'better' than 1.0, or at least tidier with some advantages, the perception is quite different. I wonder if the WG are interested in this (less than technical) view? Regards DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: RE: syntax sugar for , Jeni Tennison | Thread | [xsl] W3 XSLT 2.0 Requirements -- 2, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] hello to list, Michael Hoffmann | Date | RE: [xsl] xsl:include still a probl, DPawson |
Month |