[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
Evan sez: "My problem with xsl:script is that it makes extensions look like something other than extensions. And despite all the arguments I've heard that say that it will not encourage people to include procedural code when they otherwise would not, I believe that it certainly will encourage them to do so." My problem with scriptable extensions is having to-the-metal programmers who discover that feature and use it rather than learning the rest of the language. Unfortunately, we are also finding they often do need to do things the current implementation doesn't do or have to communicate with business objects. Uche sez: "My main objection to the Jav and ECMA bindings are that they pollute the main XSLT spec and are given unseemly prominence therein, rather than being completely relegated to an appendix, as in the DOM binding." Bindings should be in annexes, in my opinion, but where they are normative ("if you do this, do it this way") they have to be prominent annexes. I don't like seeing a Sun product favored, but Sun got out there early with decent VM-based language and people are using it. One has to ask if that is a good reason to give it prominence but replies will vary. I suspect MS will have to write their own for C#. Popularity contests are a rotten way to write a spec or a standard but this won't be the first time that has happened. But I am concerned that getting rid of the extension element altogether tosses the baby out with the bathwater. This issue of extensibility and component support is bedeviling a lot of web app languages these days. An almost one for one duplicate of this is raging on the VRML list. On one side, some want no extensions. On the other some demand extensions. On one side, XML means are being argued for. On the other, exclusive VRML means (Protos and scripts) are argued for. All I can conclude from this is that scripts are the preferred means of extending a language where one can't wait for a new version from the politburo. Given that, I don't see how you can ask them to remove it. You can ask for them to label it as a wart but they won't do that. It seems best to ask for that, but expect a compromise such as relabeling or rewriting to deemphasize the binding or to make it clear this is not de facto standardization of two vendor products. Results and perceptions will vary but I don't see a good alternative. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|