RE: object-oriented XSL

> of course it is sufficient, so is a Turing machine, it doesn't mean that
> it is the most suitable tool for the purpose. i'm not here to preach the
> advantages of object-oriented development, but i believe that although
> XSLT can be used for other things, it's purpose and focus is, and should
> be, XML transforms.

Fair enough, I'm suggesting that XML transforms are sufficient (and
efficient) for implementing business logic...

> i think i am capable to see the strengths as well
> as the weaknesses of XSLT. and it's exactly its strengths that i am
> wishing to leverage here, and i think that to a great extent that can be
> done within a purely procedural, oo model.

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?

> XSP is nice, but it doesn't go all the way in integrating the language
> into the XML model as XSLT has.

Yes, personally, I avoid XSP it's just too semantically cumbersome...

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