[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
Subject: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1|
From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:07:34 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Your text is so exhaustive that it's difficult to agree with
> all the bullet points ;=)
Thank you Eric. I think the same comment holds within
the group of primary petitioners. Not everyone agrees
with every point made. It is the 'sum of the points
which is important.
> > 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...
In '93 I had to personally maintain thousands of lines of
SQL Embedded In C. It was a far better solution than
most at the time, and this served as a stepping stone for
"real" report-writers, etc. Which, as far as my thinking
goes, do infact embeed SQL and have not impeeded the the
portability of SQL. While, I feel report specific constructs
within SQL would have seriously hindered SQL portability.
> 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.
IMHO, We were only talking about keeping the XSLT portable... ;)
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Clark C. Evans - Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:07:34 -0500 (EST) <=