Re: ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSL

Your text is so exhaustive that it's difficult to agree with all the
bullet points ;=) ...

Without wanting to kick off the debate again, I don't like the wording
of your first one:

No xsl:script Petitioners wrote:

> 1. The XSLT specification clearly states XSLT is not
> intended as a completely general-purpose XML transformation
> language.  XSLT is a special purpose language and should be
> maintained as such.  Much like structured query language, we
> think the general purpose languages should embed XSLT, not
> the other way round.

"Embed" reminds me of embedded SQL C, a widely used and, IMO, very
broken combination with many limitations that made it almost impossible
to write object oriented or even structured code and I hope we will
never see embedded XSLT in this way...

This is actually why I don't like the xsl:script stuff, because it's
embedded Java or javascript...

On the other hand, if by "embed", you mean "call" like calling a
transformation from a piece of code or calling a piece of code from a
XSLT sheet using an extension mechanism, I don't see why one would be
better than the other. 

It's a design choice and both have their advantages and I see both as
clean solutions... 

And in both cases, the combination "code+xslt" is language dependent
making it rather weird to say that one would be portable when the other
is not.

Eric
PS: I agree with your conclusion, though.
-- 
See you in Austin (Knowledge Technologies 2001)
              http://www.gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/kt_2001/mon.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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