Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Peter Flynn <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:38:11 +2400 |
At Monday, 12 February 2001, Scott wrote: >For one thing, it's not too late. The thing is in draft stage. All or >most of the XSL WG members read this list, and do actually care about >people's thoughts. I might remind you that the XSLT 1.1 extensions >mechanism is in response, for a large part, to discussions on this list >about how people really do need and want interoperable extensions, to the >degree that such a thing is possible. Absolutely. I wasn't objecting to the spec itself, and certainly not to the WG members themselves. I've been through this loop many times before, so I know the problems, and I want interoperable extensions as much as anyone else. I was just acting as Devil's Advocate: it's very easy, when you work close to the coalface, to find that some ideas take on a life and persistence of their own, based on perfectly genuine and valid assumptions that had to be made at the time. I've been willing party to enough "it seemed like a good idea" decisions to be cagey about the process :-) ///Peter XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, DPawson | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, DPawson |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Alexey Gokhberg | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl:include blues.., Oliver Becker |
Month |