I'm
convinced that the community is more and more concerned.
Still not having powerful XML standards, such as XSLT 2.0,
implemented in browsers has been argued after W3C TPAC 2010
(http://saxonica.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2010/11/4/4671786.html).
More and more people are now perceiving something but still
few can see how important this can be.
Ha! That's the first time I've seen that blog post. I must admit it put an enormous smile on my face. 5 or so years ago when all the powers that be at W3C were doing their very utmost to turn XML and related specs a bloated, incoherent, over-complicated mess (e.g. XQuery data model, the AI-ization of RDF and the CORBA-ization of Web services) I yelled myself hoarse complaining, largely on this forum (I'll admit that one of the worst offenses, XML Namespaces, I only recognized as deleterious after the fact).
And now as I predicted, all that complexity and incoherence has come back to bite the committees, and it's their turn to complain. Frankly a junta is how I perceived some of the W3C groups, and so it's interesting seeing that word turned against browser vendors. Note: no offense to Mike Kay, as might be implied, whom I respect tremendously, and who I know was just part of committees, and probably prevented even worse by being able to implement things. But the point remains that I don't see how browser vendors are any worse. They just have different priorities from those clamoring for XSLT 2.0 and RDF, just as those who developed the XML specs I decried had different priorities from me. I see it as fair turnabout, and if anything, I prefer the approach of the browser vendors: of myriad simple, scrappy standards, rather than a few behemoths. I don't agree with them in all architectural matters, but I do find their work a lot more tractable than that of the OWL/XQuery/WSDL generation of standards, and I suspect I'm far from alone in that.
