This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
- From: Francis Norton <francis at redrice dot com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:16:57 +0000
- References: <OF3ED0990D.87176A90-ON852569F2.005F44FB@lotus.com>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Scott_Boag@lotus.com wrote:
>
> That is my point about it being a stop-gap measure -- it will be a while
> until XSLT is a general purpose transformation language. Maybe it will
> never be. Good design takes time, and is interlocked with other standards.
> It's better for us to limit the ability of XSLT while we develop good
> designs for things like the document() function, grouping, etc. Extensions
> also allow vendors and users to prototype ideas, and then have the WG learn
> from them.
>
Scott,
does this mean you would favour XSLT extensions in XSLT
(<saxon:function> style) in order to allow "vendors and users to
prototype ideas", or resist it because it would go too far towards
making XSLT "a general purpose transformation language"?
Francis.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list