Subject: Re: Implementing " and ' in literals From: Matt Sergeant <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:48:28 +0100 (BST) |
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, David Carlisle wrote: > > > > You seem to be missing the point completely. See my reply to David > > Carlisle. > > No, the point is that you can't change a specification from one > implementation. That's the entire HTML mess that XML was designed to > avoid: implementors adding features whenever they wanted leading > to a competitive race and total document inoperablility. I don't want to be competitive! I want to instigate change (for XPath 2.0, for what it's worth). When I joined this list it said it was for discussion of issues pertaining to the development of XSL and XPath. Should I try and stump up the thousands of dollars needed to join the w3c, or come up with good ideas and get support behind them for free first? > The specification may not be perfect, but the solution is to update the > specification, not to make a non conforming implementation. There aren't _any_ conforming implementations of XPath - anyone who reads the grammar carefully will know what I mean by that. I agree that extensions should be disabled by default, which is something I intend to do in the next release. It's a shame XPath has no namespace mechanism to make adding grammar extensions simple. -- <Matt/> Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org http://xml.sergeant.org XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Implementing " and ' in literal, Julian Reschke | Thread | Re: Implementing " and ' in literal, David Carlisle |
RE: Javascript within XSLT, Kay Michael | Date | RE: Implementing " and ' in literal, Kay Michael |
Month |