Subject: Re: SAX2 and XSLT processors From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 13:24:47 +0200 |
David Megginson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Oren Ben-Kiki writes: > >Is there a reason for this selection - that is, can you define the > >xml.org "turf" such a way that given a spec for something we'd know > >in advance whether it belongs in the SAX2 "core" or not? > >Support for a spec other than XML belongs in the core if there are >many existing dependencies on it. By this I gather you mean many other specs depending on it - as opposed to applications? I suppose that's a consistent measure. It is however an unstable one. Suppose the W3C will release dependent specs in the future? Of course that would be a problem only if someone else specifies XSLT features in the meanwhile, which I find unlikely. Note that using the number of applications using the feature is also unstable - we hope, for example, that the number of XSLT applications will be growing. Still, this (number of applications) makes more sense to me then using the number of specs. At any rate, either of these measures means we won't see plug-and-play XSLT processors for a long while. Well, if nobody else is worried about being able to switch processors, who am I to complain? After all I'll be getting paid for writing the wrappers for each new relevant XSLT processor in the mean while. Share & Enjoy, Oren Ben-Kiki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: SAX2 and XSLT processors, Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | how to do mailto:, simon . 2 . thompson |
Re: Whitespace problem in IE5, Chanukov Orit | Date | Re: format and initial-page-number , Stephen Deach |
Month |