RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS
I don't see how one can consider a language design that doesn't allow extensions if it is to be a living language. Conformance has to be profiled in most cases anyway to enable implementations of subsets. Are you considering it to be a lockstepped monolith? If we didn't enable slang, Americans would speak English. That would be a disaster for the west coast media. len From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@d...] I agree with this. We are just starting to explore conformance issues seriously in the WG, and I do believe that the goal of interoperable implementations is essential. And sometimes tricky. For instance, are vendors allowed to do extensions? It's easy to say no, but what if some vendors want to implement updates before XQuery has added them to the language - are they really not allowed to add updates as an extension? If they *are* allowed to, should we require that there be an option that complains about every vendor extension?
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format