RE: [xsl] Locating Things Relative to Location of Style Sheet

["bryan" <bry@xxxxxxxxxx>]

David Pawson asked:
>If others would Iike to add their voice before I submit
>it to the editors?

Actually I've submitted on some of these before, and got a reasonable
response from Michael Kay, asking me to clarify what I meant by typing
in the context, I never clarified it cause I felt to do so would have
required me to sit down and write something about the length of what you
have here.

That said I would like to say this about the following parts:

>From types:

"XPath needed functions that operate on dates, but does it really need
all of the following types? xs:duration, xs:dateTime, xs:time, xs:date,
xs:gYearMonth, xs:gYear, xs:gMonthDay, xs:gDay, xs:gMonth and the mess
of casting and conversion functions that are the result of this ad hoc
collection."

Those are xml schema types, if I can just say "remove the xml schema"
which I am liking less and less the more and more I am forced to use it,
and if these got removed then I would like the good obedient developer
cattle that I am swallow my distaste along with my cud and accept the
rest of the types/functions.

This is to say that I would find all the xf: functions acceptable
(although some of them are not to my taste), as a compromise because I
feel compromise is important in any good relationship, c'mon W3C I still
think you're sexy; honest I wasn't looking at that nasty little Oasis at
all, you're much finer Okay?

Since mine is the voice of the common developer for which these are
supposedly provided, if even I am against them then jeez something's
screwy.

In fact any place where I would be likely to comment in this document it
is the parts applying to xml schema, xml schema dependency, PSVI
requirements no, no, no by god I swear now that if this follows through
I will, I will; I'll have my mid-life crisis early that's what I'll do
and leave the worlds of markup behind for the world of sleazy south seas
islands and rum - with Oasis (the standards organization not the rock
group)! 

The statement by Jeni Tennison:

"I think that this effect on two of the core, and more successful,
XML-related technologies is very worrisome."

Sums up what I tried, perhaps not very well, to convey in another
comment, that what W3C seems to be doing with this is something that the
blue-bloods should know never to do, living off their capital. A
metaphor, and perhaps not the happiest ever penned, I mean by this that
the hope seems to be that a number of specifications that are
beleaguered will find themselves enhanced by being partnered with the
secure specifications when what seems more likely given the preliminary
outcry is that the specifications that seem secure will now in turn find
themselves under fire. But perhaps there is some hidden camaraderie in
the thick mass of intertwined specs, and it is felt by these seemingly
dry technical papers (who would have thought such noble hearts beat
within such stodgy urls) that should one go down then all will follow. 

Okay I hope my two cents add something to the whole, even if it's only 2
cents.





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