Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:16:57 +0000 |
Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > That is my point about it being a stop-gap measure -- it will be a while > until XSLT is a general purpose transformation language. Maybe it will > never be. Good design takes time, and is interlocked with other standards. > It's better for us to limit the ability of XSLT while we develop good > designs for things like the document() function, grouping, etc. Extensions > also allow vendors and users to prototype ideas, and then have the WG learn > from them. > Scott, does this mean you would favour XSLT extensions in XSLT (<saxon:function> style) in order to allow "vendors and users to prototype ideas", or resist it because it would go too far towards making XSLT "a general purpose transformation language"? Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag |
[xsl] does xslt support max(), min(, anand awasthi | Date | xsl:script considered dangerous -- , Clark C. Evans |
Month |