Subject: Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 00:58:02 GMT |
> In fact one of the primary reasons Microsoft has held back from > providing direct support for the XSLT 2.0 spec is based on the last > second 'split' of the 1.0 spec into the XSL (FO) and XSLT > specifications causing an incompatible processor to be propagated and > a support nightmare to be invoked. I think that's a very skewed view of history:-) The split between FO and XSLT into two specs wasn't that late in the process : including the REC there were 7 drafts of XSL(T) only the first two of which were combined with FO. and was essentially irrelevant to the microsoft implementation as it never implemented the FO part of the draft even when they were combined, splitting it just made it easier for the transformation-only implementations to claim conformance to a named spec rather than just to chapter 2 of a combined spec. msxml2 implemented a language that had a passing resemblance to the transformation language in the XSL draft of December '98. Even if it had been a faithful implementation of that draft, releasing an implementation of a draft spec in a full non-beta release of a piece of software distributed to 90% of the world's desktops was a mistake, although at the time I think many of us thought it was probably a good thing, spreading the word... It's easier to take a different view with hindsight. > I would tend to think that the W3C has made the necessary changes to > ensure that this kind of thing doesn't take place again I don't think the W3C process can have any effect on such things. Companies (or people) will take commercial decisions on whether to release (or use) software based on a draft spec. If they do release such software again they will take commercial decisions about whether to change the software as later drafts come out. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, M. David Peterson | Thread | Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, M. David Peterson |
Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, M. David Peterson | Date | Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, M. David Peterson |
Month |