RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

[Peter Flynn <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At Monday, 12 February 2001, Scott wrote:

>For one thing, it's not too late.  The thing is in draft stage.  All or
>most of the XSL WG members read this list, and do actually care about
>people's thoughts.  I might remind you that the XSLT 1.1 extensions
>mechanism is in response, for a large part, to discussions on this list
>about how people really do need and want interoperable extensions,
to the
>degree that such a thing is possible. 

Absolutely. I wasn't objecting to the spec itself, and certainly 
not to the
WG members themselves. I've been through this loop many times before,
so I know the problems, and I want interoperable extensions as much as
anyone else. I was just acting as Devil's Advocate: it's very easy, when
you work close to the coalface, to find that some ideas take on a 
life and
persistence of their own, based on perfectly genuine and valid assumptions
that had to be made at the time. I've been willing party to enough 
"it seemed
like a good idea" decisions to be cagey about the process :-)

///Peter







 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list