RE: object-oriented XSL

> > There are times I wish that XSLT did have a better OO model, but that is
in
> > the way that includes and imports work.  XSLT 2 with the ability to have
> > multi-modal templates may solve some more of this requirement.  However,
> > there are still some gaps.  I'm still at a loss as to what your hoping
to
> > achieve beyond what existing languages can do?
> 
> what if defining a new XPath function was as easy as writing a named
> template:

[snip]

> and what if you could define types and associate functions with them,
> wouldn't that be pretty cool?

Personally, I'd much rather have first order functions in XSLT and the
ability to match on schema based types (some of which is coming).  I can't
see that what you're proposing gains me over those capabilities?

> quickly this takes us far from what XSLT is and what it does, 

??? From how it works, yes, but not from what it does...

> add to this non-XSLT dynamically typed language a bit of function
> overloading, (multiple?) inheritance, polymorphism and module building
> constructs and i think that you really got something to kick .NET and C#
> back down the hole they came from. want to write XML web services? 

Umm, I think Java already does that...


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