[xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...)

Subject: [xsl] Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish...)
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:24:17 -0800 (PST)
> > I think that writing extension functions in XSLT appears initially
> > very attractive (as apposed to Java, etc) but in the bigger scheme
> > of things it appears to me to be a short term hack that will
> > significantly add to the complexity of XSLT without improving the
> > language.
> Just to make it clear - are you opposed only to XSLT as the extension
> language, or to any language?

Just to make it clear -- why should the ***new language*** 
described in the draft -- be called XSLT?

Is it XSLT 1.0, or 1.1 or 2.0?

If not, how should it be called?

I really appreciate the great effort that's been demonstrated so far. However, for me this is an
effort to describe a separate, new language that has never been specified before, and this new
language should not be confused with XSLT.

According to the latest requirements for XSLT 2.0, something similar may become official in XSLT
2.0. Before this has happened any similar initiative will clearly not be "XSLT".

Once again -- I welcome the initiative to produce a new language for writing extension functions
in XSLT, however there should be no mixing and confusing it with the language XSLT as specified in
the W3C spec.

Dimitre Novatchev.

Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 

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

Current Thread