This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: XSLT 1.1 comments
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
- From: Peter Flynn <peter at silmaril dot ie>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:17:54 +0000
- Organization: Silmaril Consultants
- References: <00BB1956AE40D411B5B60050DA27311F3C6079@mail1.bluezone.net>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Adam wrote:
> Time to throw a bit of grease on the fire.
:-)
[...]
> Now, if there is no xsl:script tag, then I don't have to worry about making
> those mappings because they are not part of the XSL namespace. This way, ALL
> XSLT 1.1 transforms will work (I'll make sure that other namespaces fallback
> gracefully). The fact of the matter is, NOT defining a language mapping is
> more interoperable than having one.
I suspect it's a done deal and therefore too late. It's an unfortunate
side-effect of using the corporate resources of W3C members to fund and
speed the generation and adoption of new specs (rather than letting
them evolve alongside implementations a la RFC) which we just have to
live with. Specific corporate pressures will always lead to useful but
problematic features being implemented in this way, or even being
elided. A similar problem appeared to exist over the proposals for
XPointer to be able to point at arbitrary text spans, for example, but
I haven't caught up on the resolution of that yet.
///Peter
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list