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

Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Your text is so exhaustive that it's difficult to agree with all the
> bullet points ;=) ...

I also couldn't agree wholesale with every aspect of the petition, or that I
would have worded things the same way; but the conclusion I come to is the
same, and by similar reasoning. However, I think it would help our case if
it made more clear the fact that we understand that xsl:script technically
adds no new functionality, because implementors already are able to support
embedded scripting using the standard extension mechanisms (eg.
msxsl:script).

Thus a good analogy Joerg Pietschmann:

> Having said this, well, the only motive for withholding xsl:script
> would be to prevent innocent users from shooting themselves. However,
> as everybody, including, but not limited to, the evil empire, already
> hand out shotguns, we could legalise shotguns as well.

And an equally grim one by me earlier:

> As I said before, the mechanisms are already there for people to hang
> themselves on assignment statements; xsl:script just pushes them over
> the ledge.
(http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200102/msg00928.html)

So perhaps, Uche, you could state more clearly up-front that we understand
this distinction.

Thanks,
Evan


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