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

Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:23:54 GMT

  Actually, as we get closer to finishing, I'm getting more and more
  convinced that people will find the stronger typing useful, although I
  was very sceptical when we started. Yes, XML Schema is a pig, but it
  turns out you can live with it if you avoid looking at it too closely,
  and that is what large numbers of people are in fact doing.

and to be fair Xpath2 it is looking less horrible each draft (still got
a way to go though:) but that's why I think people should complain more
rather than less, to encourage further improvements.

I accept your point that you are too far down the line to completely
unravel the schema stuff (even if that would be popular on this list)
the only way to do that would be to kill the spec completely as happened
to HTML 3.0, but I don't think that would be a good thing. If the
current WG is killed off (negative vote in last call for example) then
it's not clear that you'd want to come up with a new design or that
anyone credible is offering an alternative (I'm certainly not).

However I think there is more that could be done to make sure that there
are methods available to force consistent behaviour between
implementations for those of us for whom cross platform compatibility is
more important than allowing implementation specific behaviour to
gain the most natural or efficient implementation on each architecture.
The conformance rules will be interesting reading....


This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread