[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> while I appreciate the work that's gone in to it, when looking at
> Xpath 1 and Xpath 2, then it is not at all clear to me that no Xpath2
> spec would be that bad an outcome. Some of the worst features have been
> improved in more recent drafts (For which I'm prepared to believe you had
> some influence:-) but still the price paid for the nice new features
> (is, regexp, more general path expressions) is far too high.
AOL. Strongly agreed. I have long said that XPath/XSLT 1.0 + EXSLT is a very
strong foundation. Strong enough to survive the ISO 5-year lifetime. I see
no reason to hustle out 2.0 specs, especially such awful ones. Yes, EXSLT is
not W3C-blessed, but it has enough cross-vendor support at this point to be de
facto standard enough.
I'm still catching up post-hols on the pleasingly vibrant XPath NG mailing list
http://lists.fourthought.com/mailman/listinfo/xpath-ng
But I expect XPath 1.0 + EXSLT + very carefully constructed modules will be
our most important work product.
> The XSLT group could have done XSLT2+Xpath1 in 1/100 of the time and
> with far greater level of acceptance in the existing XSLT user base.
AOL. No doubt.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Tour of 4Suite - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/16/py-xml.html
Proper XML Output in Python - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/13/py-xml.html
RSS for Python - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-pyth11.html
Debug XSLT on the fly - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-debugxs.html
|
