RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)

Subject: RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:42:16 -0500
At 9:10 AM -0600 2/4/03, Kienle, Steven C [IT/0200] wrote:

The key is to not just say "It's too difficult;" but to say "I think this
section/point/feature is asking too much of developers and is likely to
prevent adoption of the new standard in new versions of XSLT processors."
Back it up with constructive critiques and the standard can actually be
affected; just screaming "I can't do that; I give up!" and the specs

I've said it before and I'll say it again: many W3C working groups, including the XSLT 2 group, are simply nonresponsive to valid concerns that go to the root of what they're doing. In this case, the criticism is not of this point or that point in the spec. It is with the underlying architecture of the entire spec, specifically its dependence on schemas and the PSVI. We want all dependence on types removed from XSLT 2/XPath 2. We do not want a strongly typed language.

To a lot of us, it feels as though we're stuck in a train that's run off the tracks and is barrelling toward a large chasm while accelerating, and every time we suggest that the brakes need to be pulled and the train stopped, the conductors just tell us, "Please make specific comments about the food in the dining car, and we'll talk to the chef."

| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Writer/Programmer |
|           Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002)          |
|                 |
|  |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News:    |

XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread