Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template)

[Francis Norton <francis at redrice dot com>]

Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have wailed about parts of the XSLT 1.1 proposal, but I feel that we -
> > the XSLT community - will achieve more if we build on each other's
> > efforts. Given the choice between an approach which slots into XSLT 1.1
> > and the 1.1 / 2.0 schedule and one which ignores both, I think the first
> > approach has a higher chance of widespread adoption and widespread user
> > benefit.
> 
> I disagree.  There is no such thing as an XSLT 1.1 implementation now (no, the
> latest Saxon doesn't count) and there won't be until XSLT 1.1 is a REC, which
> will be for perhaps a year yet.
> 
> We really need to watch our premature adoption of W3C specs.  They can change
> *drastically* before they even get to PR/CR status, and even as PRs or CRs, as
> XHTML and SVG illustrated, they can change quite a bit before REC.
> 
> I think we should focus on XSLT 1.0, since one can only speculate about XSLT
> 1.1.

Well, I would accept that a successful XSLT 1.0 exercise might change
the XSLT 1.1 requirements landscape in a positive way. But I would like
to limit the scope so that it doesn't end up competing with 1.1 or 2.0
on too many issues.

Francis.

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list