Re: Crossposting (Was: Re: Case of function names (Was: Re: [xsl] comments on December F&O draft))

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeni

> I think we should move the discussion to xsl-editors@xxxxxx or
> www-xpath-comments@xxxxxx instead, since these are both open to
> subscribers.

Yes that seems to be the only option (and I am subscribed to both those)
although in a way it's a shame. I get the distinct feeling that X*2 is
over influenced by the (real) need to extend X*1 to address the needs of
the "database" uses of XML, but is under-influenced by the requirements
thrown up by users of XSLT over the last couple of years. This isn't a
particularly bad situation, given that this is the first working draft,
but the way to improve things is for real users to comment on whether the
proposed extensions meet their expectations and would solve the problems
they have had using X*1.

There is far more chance of getting user comment if discussion happens
on this list than if it happens on either of the lists above.
(That is if we discount the usual suspects: WG members + you, me, etc.)

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

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