Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
--- Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > 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 IMHO, th best way to ensure 1. the further flourishing of XSLT as a professional and rich Transformation-Language , and 2. the best possible portability of XSLTs is to 1. include all features neede for transformation of XML-data (and don't leave all special needs or advanced features to Java etC.) 2. specify no bindings or extension-mechanisms. If XSLT will be good, neither bindings nor extensions nor other languages are needed to transform XML. It is true that most developers won't bother learning any advanced XSLT-stuff when it is specified by the spec as being valid to use their favourite Programming-language with it. I would like to be able to code all transformations of XML with pure XSLT, to have portable transformation-files. Tobi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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