Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames

Subject: Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames
From: Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:41:34 +1030
David Carlisle wrote:
Although one should probably note that because of the W3C's rather cavalier attitude to maintaining standards, the question in the subject line is not well posed: The set of legal Qnames changed between XML 1.0 edition 4 and edition 5, so the meaning of \c which is defined by reference to the XML spec depends on which edition 1.0 of XML is being implemented


Well said and somewhat collaborated by E.R.Harold in

You have to read the full article on his site to put this into perspective regarding the 5th edition. As an implementor, this Qname change presents for me yet another hurdle. So what's new in the loneliness of the long distance X* runner?

Perhaps the time has come to say that the W3C has outlived its usefulness. ... Between schemas and XML 1.0 5th edition, they same intent on doing the same thing to XML. ... XSLT 2 and XPath 2 were still-born, and the much more pragmatic XSLT 1.1 was killed. Maybe XQuery, but even that is far more complex and less powerful than it should be due to an excessive number of use cases and a poorly designed schema type system. I think we might all be better off if the W3C had declared victory and closed up shop in 2001.


-- Justin Johansson

Current Thread