[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
> Joe English wrote:
> > That was all the triage I needed. I won't be using these
> > technologies at all.
>
> "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/)."
>
> 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 -- 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.
That's precisely why I won't bother submitting any feedback:
it would just make more work for the WG. Obviously *somebody*
wants the PSVI, otherwise it wouldn't keep creeping into
everything. No amount of informed dissent is going to get
it removed, so why bother? No, I'll just vote with my feet
on this one.
> 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.
I don't think the extra gunk necessarily makes XPath/XSLT 2.0
_unusable_ -- users can probably just ignore the bits they
don't need -- it just makes it more complex.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
