|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 05/05/2003 20:57:29 GMT Daylight Time, mc@xegesis.org writes:
"Public comments on this document and its open issues are welcome, in
particular comments on Issue 510. Comments should be sent to the W3C
XPath/XQuery mailing list, public-qt-comments@w3.org (archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/)."
Mike,
I think issue 546, conformance levels, will be a key issue for many current users of XSLT 1.0.
I think [wearing neither any W3C hat or my Day Job hat] that the W3C is not
the same place it was a couple of years ago when working groups were
basically trusted to do the right thing
I wonder why that change came about? <grin/>
-- it is much harder to get a spec
to Recommendation status, and there is a lot of Process specifying how
informed dissent and constructive suggestions must be handled. To a certain
extent a WG can still just say "we considered that idea and rejected it"
but the original issue must be tracked all the way to the Director for
final approval of the resolution. There's also the TAG to (at least
potentially) address fundamental architectural issues.
I would encourage people who have found XPath/XSLT 1.0 useful to carefully
consider the changes they don't like, to make their opinions known on the
comment lists (I assure you that the issues list editors don't take input
from xml-dev!) and to offer suggestions for how to keep the "neat new
stuff" without making the whole thing unusable. See the "conformance
levels" in particular.
If the WG can get the conformance levels right then I think that the new functionality in XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 will quickly lead to very many XSLT 1.0 users migrating.
In fact, if the WG get the conformance levels right, I can't think off hand of a single reason for stylesheet authors to stay with XSLT 1.0. Anyone care to offer any?
I have been spending quite a bit of time with XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 lately and I like what I see - I like it a lot - with the proviso that we don't yet know how well the conformance level cake will be sliced up.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|