[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I haven't read all of the conversation, I admit. I am one of the few people
who would actually use and enjoy type information in XSLT. I hear a lot of
people saying people like me are crazy (and in the 20%)-- so it should be
removed from the spec. I have no problem with that-- it might be better--
what if we just made XML Schemas bigger? What if we added a new xmlschema-3
spec that defined an extension layer on top of XPath 2.0-- completely
separate from XPath 2.0 (XPath 2.0 would not even have a reference to XML
Schemas). It seems just as easy (hard?) to do. Then those features would
live or die on their own. It seems that it is time to do something "low and
under the wire" to paraphase an old xml-dev saying. It seems that XPath is
already designed to handle extensions-- even of this nature. If this was
done, it might embolden others to write their "type" or "Post (insert your
spec) Infoset" modules on top of XPath. Most of all it would keep XML
Schemas in their own little corner of the room and anyone who wanted to play
could walk over there... I would walk over there... but I wouldn't mind
really.
Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems
http://www.defined.net
XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
|
