Re: [exsl] Re: Draft 0.1 - call for comments (longish.

Hi Dimitre,

>>> I think that writing extension functions in XSLT appears initially
>>> very attractive (as apposed to Java, etc) but in very attractive
>>> (as apposed to Java, etc) but in the bigger scheme of things it
>>> appears to me to be a short term hack that will significantly add
>>> to the complexity of XSLT without improving the language.
>> 
>> Just to make it clear - are you opposed only to XSLT as the
>> extension language, or to any language?
>
> Just to make it clear -- why should the ***new language*** 
> described in the draft -- be called XSLT?

Um, well you could say that XSLT includes extension elements - a
conformant XSLT stylesheet can include them. Or you could say that
XSLT doesn't because extension elements are (by definition) extensions
to XSLT.

To avoid confusion and argument, let's call it "XSLT with EXSL
extensions". My question was whether Kevin objected to extension
functions in any language (e.g. Java, Perl) or only to extension
functions in "XSLT with EXSL extensions".

> Is it XSLT 1.0, or 1.1 or 2.0?

The version of "XSLT with EXSL extensions" in the draft is based on
XSLT 1.0.  When that's finalised, we can move on to a new version
based on XSLT 1.1.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/



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