Subject: Re: Venting From: Robin Cover <robin@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:08:35 -0600 (CST) |
Guy Murphy wrote: > OK lets sacrafice XSL on the alter of marketing spin so you > can describe your product as 100% XSL compliant. I don't think this is fundamentally a question of 'marketing spin' -- even if there is a marketing concern down the road. A tangential concern: The surest way to create genuine confusion is to give something important "the wrong name." You probably can't give your child "the wrong name" but you can give a language "the wrong name." Whether "XSL" is "the wrong name" and whether the XSL specification should be split are debatable. However, I am personally sympathetic to the position that "XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language) may now subsume too much territory -- including definition of facilities that are not easily explained as "stylesheet". Granting the difficulty of political processes which may lie in the path to a "correction," I think it would be unwise to underestimate the long-term negative impact of naming a language poorly. If distinct (sub-) languages are what we really have (throw in what should be one or more 'query languages'), then I think the W3C should be urged to design names that are well-matched to the scope and fundamental features of these languages. My .005 cents. -rcc XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: Venting, Simon St.Laurent |
Re: Venting, Don Park | Date | Re: Venting, Simon St.Laurent |
Month |