Re: XSL as a better XPointer

[Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>]

Didier PH Martin wrote:

> I think that the problem could be more political than practical. The two
> specs are developed by two groups and there is probably no mechanism in
> place to re-unite these worlds. I may be wrong, and I wish I am.

The two specs are developed by different working groups, yes. And each
will want to ensure that the particular needs of their WG are met.
However, if harmonisation or unification is found to be technically
feasible and beneficial for both WGs, there are no political obstacles
to doing so.

There are a number of existing mechanisms in place for W3C WGs to
communicate requirements and dependencies to one another, such as
coordination groups (which have weekly teleconferences), meetings of
chairs, staff contact liaisons, and so on.  So, yes, your wish to be
wrong was granted ;-)

> When working on the design of XScripts I had to create a scheme for name
> space convention I turned to W3C specs and discovered a certain
> schizophrenic pattern here. If I take XPointers as name space I am loosing
> XSL name space convention. If I take XSL name space convention I am loosing
> XPointer convention. If I unify both world I get excommunicated from W3C as
> not respecting the specs. Is this what we call a catch 22?

Could you post some examples because I really don't see the problem form
here; there is one W3C spec on namespaces and both XPointer and XSL and
indeed all other XML-using WGs all use this same mechanism.

--
Chris



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list