Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

[Uche Ogbuji <uche dot ogbuji at fourthought dot com>]

> 
>  > NO! They can't that is what I was trying to say.
> 
> 
> > Yes they can.  Language-independent interfaces have a long pedigree:
> > see COM, CORBA, and many application CLIs. 
> 
> I'm not saying there couldn't be one. I'm saying there isn't one in
> XSLT 1.0 as it stands today.
> 
> But there are two separate threads happening. 
> 
> Some people (including yourself) are arguing that the mechanism
> suggested for having a common binding syntax with xsl:script is bad
> and should be changed. That is a reasonable argument but not something
> that really I feel I should join in on. Argue your case with Mike K or
> James C etc (it's better to argue with them anyway as they are on the WG
> and so might actually change something:-)

They read this list, as I've seen, so I think it's as effective as my squeaky 
little voice can be to make my case here.

> Actually I don't mind _how_ extension functions get bound so long as I
> don't have to litter my stylesheet with massive switches or fallback
> nestings for each processor. If you come up with a good solution and get
> the WG to agree with it, I'm happy.

I'm glad to hear this.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



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