|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 08/05/2003 15:26:54 GMT Daylight Time, elharo@metalab.unc.edu writes:
I would be interested to hear more detail of what, specifically, you
think has gone wrong with XQuery / XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0.
Why repeat it?
Well, in a sense, on this list is not the prime place to repeat it. But, on checking public-qt-comments list you have posted 3 times since the list opened in April 2002, twice in the process of a discussion and once on a typo.
If you are *serious* about your concerns ... or anyone else on this list is serious ... why not lay those concerns out in a standalone document and put those concerns to the WG?
If the document goes to public-qt-comments then the WGs are not allowed to ignore them. If you get waffle as a response then state that you are not satisfied.
My $0.02 would be that a *solution* to the layering issue(s) would be more acceptable (and realistic) in a document than a shouted harangue.
As an aside, I am much less concerned about the XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 / XQuery package than I was a few months back. But it's not perfect.
I and others much more eloquent than me have shouted
about this time and time again.
Perhaps ... just perhaps ... a clear, rational case would be more productive.
As we learned earlier today from Mike Champion and John Cowan there is a formal process for dealing with suggested RECs with unresolved issues.
Putting in a well-argued document would bring the issues out into the open. Then if the response is inadequate and unacceptable just say so formally. ... At that point W3C process could become very interesting. :)
The clearer and more coherent the objection document(s) the harder the WG will have to work to dismiss them. If it were me and I felt as strongly as you seem to feel I would draft a comments document with an Executive Summary that is framed for TBL to read at the dispute-resolution stage. If nothing else that approach will very possibly focus the WG's mind on how to respond and reduce the chances of an attempt to ignore the issues raised.
It's obvious the working group is committed to going in the direction they're going,
Very possibly. But, so we are told, W3C process exists to provide some sort of safety check. Why not at least give it a serious attempt?
and is deaf to comments that challenge their fundamental assumptions,
Well, if you don't put in significant, well-argued comments you have little or no chance of making them undeaf. Isn't that so?
so the rest of us will have to blaze our own trails and compete rather than
cooperate. May the best language win.
Sure that option is open. But you haven't actually, as far as I can trace, made a serious attempt to convey your concerns formally to the WG. Why not try that first?
The phrase "given up in disgust" doesn't really convey much detail of
what the stumbling blocks are perceived to be and what solutions
might be appropriate (and what solutions might be possible).
Which XSLT 1.0 implementers have actually given up?
I recall Daniel Veillard mentioning that libxml won't be moving to
XSLT 2 any time soon. Jaxen is also staying with XPath 1.0. JDOM and
XOM are likely to remain XPath 1.0 only.
Yes, I was aware of Daniel's feelings (expressed on XSL-List, as I recall).
What size of market share do you believe these implementers have?
As far as I know only Saxon and Xalan have committed to XSLT 2.
Yes, I knew of those. Oracle also has some support in XDK v10 beta.
I assume that Microsoft will be doing something, whether in a new version of MSXML or a component to do XQuery or what is open to debate.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|