Hi Mike,
Thanks for sharing these references. Sorry, I think I joined
xsl-list later than, when the below petition was put forward, so was
not aware of the discussions during that time.
From the xsl-list archives you pointed, titled: "Petition to withdraw
xsl:script from XSLT 1.1" I tend to share the concerns of the authors
of this petition.
I agree, that not having bindings for languages like Java would
achieve higher levels of portability.
I also read Appendix C of the XSLT 1.1 WD. It's pretty complex than
what I thought.
I am sorry for putting up an useless argument, and I withdraw my point.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
It's a lot more than three pages. See Appendix C of
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt11/
And after the controversy in 2001, I don't think the WG will want to get its
fingers burnt again.
Take a look at some of the correspondence, for example
http://xsl.markmail.org/search/?q=Java%20language%20bindings%20petition
--
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--