Re: [xsl] Books on XSLT/XPATH

[Evan Lenz <evan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For the record, Microsoft did take part in the development of the XSLT 
2.0 specification, both through membership on the working group and as 
host of many WG meetings. So it's not as if they're a stranger to the 
process.

Evan

M. David Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:40:54 -0700, Dimitre Novatchev 
> <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully they will incorporate Dr. Kay's lexical and grammar
> > definition (at least as a matter of style) in a 2.1 or Errata version
> > of the recommendation.
>
> An interesting point of discussion.  If I am remembering correctly, 
> Dr. Kay once stated (whether in jest or in all seriousness, I couldn't 
> be certain) that the next specification for XSLT would be 
> developed/edited by someone other than himself.  If this is, in fact, 
> how things turn out, given the fact that,
>
>  * MSFT was not involved with the development of the XSLT 2.0 spec and 
> yet have since repented of their evil ways ;), to now embrace XSLT 
> 2.0, currently and actively developing an implementation as we speak.
>  * MSFT is coming at the specification from a somewhat neutral 
> perspective, yet have both publicly admitted they are working on an 
> implementation and committed to providing CTP's as they become 
> available over the next year.
>  * MSFT has both the resources and power to actively court a lead 
> editing position on a W3C specification they have interest in.
>
> Then it would seem to me that if their becomes a need to fill the 
> position of the XSLT 2.x editor due to the well deserved retirement of 
> Dr. Kay, who better to represent the ongoing development and 
> refinement of the specification than the company who, through baptism 
> by fire, is coming to understand the most intimate details of the 2.0 
> specification, and as such, is well suited to locate where any 
> potential problems exist, and well capable of providing the editorial 
> resources for any necessary errata to the 2.0 as well as, if/when 
> necessary a 2.1+ release of a new specification?
>
> Of course, I have my own feelings on the matter in regards to the 
> person at MSFT in whom I feel would best fill this position, though 
> this is obviously not the type of discussion that would be appropriate 
> to take place on-list, though if anyone has interest in this 
> discussion off-list, by all means, let's have this discussion, as it 
> seems to me to be a pretty important one if, in fact, the need were to 
> arise.
>
> --/M:D
>
> M. David Peterson
> http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | 
> http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155