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