[XML-SIG] Re: [4suite] Article about XSLT 1.1 and <xsl:script>

[Clark C. Evans]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Alexandre Fayolle wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > Actually, I've gone beyond that.  With Clark Evans and other concerned
> > parties, I've set up a petition against the xsl:script nonsense and
> > language bindings.  Please see
> > 
> > http://uche.ogbuji.net:8000/etc/no-xsl-script.xhtml
> 
> The text of the petition says:
> 
> "7. With [...] recent changes to the DOM specification, it appears that
> the W3C strongly favors Java and Javascript over other equally qualified
> languages."
> 
> Could you please detail this? I'm interested in learning how the DOM can
> be language biased. 

I authored this clause and in the back of my head while I was writing
was a message by Mike Champion (perhaps a private one) about the new 
working draft having Java specific stuff.  I never followed up or
verified the reference.  So, when your post was brought to my attention
I freaked out, went scurring about looking for this Java reference
and didn't find it.  Thus, I labeled it as a "bug" and posted to the
xsl-list my apologies for the error.  (IMHO, it is better to admit to 
a possible error before you are accused of it on a public list even 
if it turns out not to be an error).  So, since I was the author of
this paragraph, I labeled it as a bug in the draft which was probably
a politic thing to do anyway.

However, just for your edification, Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com>
posted the following to xml-dev regarding the Java litter in
the DOM WG recent draft:

> In fact, if you look at the WD for DOM3-Core
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-DOM-Level-3-Core-20010126/core.html) you'll
> see that Java is not at all relegated to an appendix. Section 1.2 is
> *entirely* about Java. I'm certain that the intentions behind that section
> are good, and I am aware that it is only a WD but that section has nothing
> to do there and I nevertheless find it's presence alarming. Either it ought
> to describe bindings (and in this case, implementation because it's what it
> does) for all languages succeptible of supporting a DOM interface, or it
> should be language independent. A DOMImplementationFactory is probably a
> good idea, describing that interface as part of the DOM is certainly enough.

So, I hope this will help.  In any case, Uche was not responsible
for this goof... it was my bad.

Clark

P.S.  I look forward to using 4SuiteServer!  Sorry this had to be
      my first post...