Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNam

Hi,

Complaining may not be so constructive but it may seem that expressing opinions and viewpoints with logic, experience, and clear sight may be. The objective should not be determining who is right but rather what is best for most in the long term.

And we may be going off topic.

Cheers,
ac

On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:19 +1030, Justin Johansson wrote:
He's mainly on about the conundrum surrounding XML 5th edition to which
my thoughts were:
"As an implementor, this Qname change presents for me yet another hurdle.
It doesn't change it a whole lot from XML 1.1.  You were supporting
XML 1.1, right?  If no, what hope would there have been that you'd
have supported an XML 1.2? Even less. If yes, quit complaining :-)
Liam

Current Thread
Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames, (continued) Justin Johansson - 3 Feb 2010 13:12:04 -0000 Dimitre Novatchev - 3 Feb 2010 18:19:01 -0000 Justin Johansson - 4 Feb 2010 00:49:55 -0000 Liam R E Quin - 4 Feb 2010 01:57:12 -0000 ac - 4 Feb 2010 02:25:29 -0000 <= Liam R E Quin - 4 Feb 2010 05:19:49 -0000 Justin Johansson - 4 Feb 2010 11:18:48 -0000 List Owner - 4 Feb 2010 14:16:00 -0000 Liam R E Quin - 5 Feb 2010 02:41:16 -0000

Current Thread

Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames, (continued)

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequ, Liam R E Quin	Thread	Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequ, Liam R E Quin
Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequ, Liam R E Quin	Date	Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequ, Liam R E Quin
	Month

<-prev [Thread] next->	<-prev [Date] next->
Month Index \| List Home

Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames