Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

| > Now, if there is no xsl:script tag, then I don't have to worry about making
| > those mappings because they are not part of the XSL namespace. This way, ALL
| > XSLT 1.1 transforms will work (I'll make sure that other namespaces fallback
| > gracefully). The fact of the matter is, NOT defining a language mapping is
| > more interoperable than having one. 
| 
| I suspect it's a done deal and therefore too late.

The XSLT 1.1 spec is a first working draft, so I don't understand
why you're throwing in the towel already! :-)

The very nature of Working Drafts is to get user community
feedback *before* it's too late.

So far, on this thread, we've heard feedback from a few
XSLT processor implementors:

   FourThought, makers of 4XSLT (a Python XSLT 1.0 implementation)

   Unicorn Enterprises, maker of Unicorn XSLT (a C++ XSLT implementation)

   Daniel Veillard, maker of libxml-based XSLT processor (in C, I believe)

Other than the few good points about making the spec clearer,
the executive summary of the feedback seems to be "why are Java
and ECMAScript special?"

We encourage any additional feedback.

______________________________________________________________
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/


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