Lists Home |
Date Index |
5/12/2002 7:20:08 AM, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
> We can take it for granted that the XQuery people are RDBMS-orientated in
> their thinking / approach. So, likely they will apply that mindset/
> perspective to XSLT and XPath.
I don't have any deep insights into the politics of the Query/Xpath/XSLT
mega-WG, but that doesn't sound right to me. Looking at the editors and
their careers and affiliations, it looks to me like the stated goal
is the real orientation -- a unification of RDBMS, OO, and XML querying
approaches. As best I recall, the criticism from RDBMS folks has been
that it's too XML-centric.
> So where is the representation on the XSLT WG for a small and slim XSLT 2.0
I think Michael Kay has explained quite succinctly that there is almost no
way that a W3C working group can work toward a "small and slim" spec. I can't
find the post I'm thinking of, but I'd put it this way: when the process
demands consensus, and options A and B are on the table, it is much, much
easier to agree on "A union B" than A, or B, or especially "A intersect B".
This used to depress me greatly, but I've learned to stop worrying and
love the W3C :~) I take comfort in Sean McGrath's argument that
complexity is a precondition to simplicity.
"I believe that XML could not have happened without SGML.
If not for the groundwork laid by the SGML work,
the map of the territory that it created, then XML
would have contained a lot more mistakes. This seems
to reference another fundamental rule of the universe
that can be stated thus: Complexity is a necessary
but not sufficient pre-cursor for the emergence of simplicity."
The people that will carve out the small and slim successor to
XSLT (and XPath, and XQuery, and DOM, and XML schemas, etc. etc.)
are the end users and those who learn from them. Call it Mother
Nature, Father Darwin, the Invisible Hand, or whatever ... all of
us on this list, and our customers/readers/competitors, are
going to bury the mistakes and cross-breed the successes.