Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Peter Flynn <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:17:54 +0000 |
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Adam wrote: > Time to throw a bit of grease on the fire. :-) [...] > Now, if there is no xsl:script tag, then I don't have to worry about making > those mappings because they are not part of the XSL namespace. This way, ALL > XSLT 1.1 transforms will work (I'll make sure that other namespaces fallback > gracefully). The fact of the matter is, NOT defining a language mapping is > more interoperable than having one. I suspect it's a done deal and therefore too late. It's an unfortunate side-effect of using the corporate resources of W3C members to fund and speed the generation and adoption of new specs (rather than letting them evolve alongside implementations a la RFC) which we just have to live with. Specific corporate pressures will always lead to useful but problematic features being implemented in this way, or even being elided. A similar problem appeared to exist over the proposals for XPointer to be able to point at arbitrary text spans, for example, but I haven't caught up on the resolution of that yet. ///Peter XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench |
[xsl] question about select, Jo Bourne | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |