[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:34:37 -0600

If I read this correctly, the problem is not 
the script element but the perceived requirement 
that Java (a Sun product) and JavaScript (a 
Netscape/AOL product) are required to be supported, 
thus engendering a product bias into a language 
neutral specification?

Same problem with X3D.  The retort is 
that "We don't insist that an implementor 
support Java.  We insist that if they support 
Java, they use this binding."  The further 
explanation has been unofficially that failing 
to support Java has seriously hurt the acceptance 
of VRML.  In VRML, the required support was 
for EcmaScript and VrmlScript.  Neither satisfied 
the developers who wanted object-oriented language 
extensibility.

Is this case different?

If the W3C is biasing XSLT to Sun implementations 
and products, I can sign as an individual.  If the 
language is such that it can be weaseled as has 
been done in other cases, it is a moot point because 
it is vendor's choice regardless of perception.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]

I hope no one takes offence at this, but some of the XSLT future
discussion has spilled over here at times, so, as Clark Evans posted to
the xsl-list:

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
    • From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more grist
• Next by Date: Re: more grist
• Previous by thread: FWD: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by thread: RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread