re: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javascript function in .xsl file)

["Vun Kannon, David" <dvunkannon@xxxxxxxx>]

	Indeed, it would seem that this is a golden opportunity to put
namespaces to good use. I'm fine with the addition of <eval>, as long as it
is <ms:eval>, not <xsl:eval>. Now, for all the extensions they've made to
the pattern language, this is another argument in favor of the "old-style"
patterns. When the pattern is expressed as elements and content, namespaces
can be applied at a finer level of granularity.

	My list of reasons for preferring the old syntax now stands at:
	Easier to read (YMMV!)
	Easier to comment/document
	Easier to reference with pointers/links
	Allows use of namespaces
	Easier to apply XSL to XSL documents ( i.e. transform patterns into
other patterns or vocabularies)
Cheers,
David vun Kannon

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Tyler Baker [SMTP:tyler@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Friday, November 06, 1998 2:40 PM
> To:	xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:	Re: how to call Javascript function in .xsl file
> 
	<snip/>
> If the major XSL software vendors (Microsoft included) intentionally cloud
> the
> idea of what is standard XSL for their own benefit, then XSL will likely
> turn into
> the current state of implementations for HTML
> 
> Tyler.
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


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