Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Ross" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XSL List <email@example.com>, XML List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:32:48 -0500
This is definitely the problem, but the solution might then lie in not
defining an intrinsic mismatch between the first official XSL spec and the
existing XML 1.0 and DOM Level 1?
As was mentioned on the list the other day, XML 1.0 doesn't support
namespaces either - and it is abundantly clear that there is huge
controversy within the community about the namespaces in XML recommendation.
Perhaps it is simply too early to require namespace support in XSL at all?
Perhaps, instead, the initial XSL spec should deliberately be designed to
mesh well with the existing and prevailing implementations of XML and DOM.
DOM Level 2 is a Pandora's box, and to support it will require a massive
amount of effort by comparison to DOM Level 1. Why saddle XSL with this
burden now? It probably just isn't the right time. If it is a good idea,
then it will remain a good idea when these other key specs have matured
enough to support it?
When XML and DOM have advanced it will be much more appropriate to revisit
this namespaces in XSL issue. To discard DOM now is bad for the emerging
technology and bad for the business applications that will be the drivers of
its economic viability.
I really hope this is not contentious - I want to see the best result emerge
- as I believe the majority of list readers do, whatever that result may be?
Tim Bray wrote:
> >Surely there must be effective middle ground? I hope our dialog can reveal
> The problem is that the DOM doesn't have namespace support yet. They
> couldn't possibly have had it - the DOM went to recommendation before
> namespaces were done. The DOM people know this is a problem and will
> have namespace support in their level 2. It would be nice if this
> were here today, but it isn't.
adr:;;100 Park Avenue;New York;NY;10017;US
note:Java Lobby - http://www.javalobby.org