Lists Home |
Date Index |
> James Fuller wrote:
> > Your best bet is to create an issues overview document which is written for
> > the 80%; better yet if written by Jeni Tennison, Michael Kay, and James
> > Clark. A shadow TAG cabinet....
> Or: if those three (and maybe Uche Ogbuji and a few others)
> developed a skunkworks spec for XSLT 2, that would serve end
> users far better than the current W3C process.
> I know that's asking a lot, but please consider it.
I personally think that most of what is needed in XSLT/XPath 2 is already
added by EXSLT, in which Mike, Jeni and I already participate actively. Of
course, there are some structural matters that would be nice to bother from
the current 2.0 series specs, such as sequences, the lack of RTF (true
excision, and not just cosmetic brush-over with exsl:node-set), multiple
result documents, if ... then in XPath, etc. I suppose it wouldn't be too
hard to select some modules from EXSLT and some wording from XPath/XSLT 2.0.
Not too hard, but it would take a lot of time to make a conscientious effort
of it, which is where I'd guess the trouble lies.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/
Python&XML column: Tour of Python/XML - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/18/py.
Python/Web Services column: xmlrpclib - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/w