|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] The XPath/XQuery juggernaut (Was: limits of the generic)
In a message dated 01/10/2002 11:48:08 GMT Daylight Time, jeni@j... writes: > So far, I've just resigned myself to ignoring XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 Jeni, Congratulations on joining the juggernaut. :) I suspect it is far too late for you to have any tangible effect on XPath 2.0/XSLT 2.0/XQuery 1.0 but would be delighted to be proved wrong. Increasingly, as I observe W3C process from the outside the "black box" which sets the juggernaut for any particular technology going happens outside the public gaze yet seems of great importance in setting the foundations of the embryonic technology. I am referring to the definition of a Requirements Working Draft. To the best of my knowledge the community for a technology is, in reality, not consulted in the development of a Requirements document - other than the arguable figleaf of "the community" who also happen to be W3C members. Discounting SMIL, the XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 specifications are arguably the first XML-based W3C technology which is well in process to reach version 2.0. The failure (to the best of my knowledge) of W3C to consult the XSLT/XPath community is a significant failure of W3C process, in my view. It may not be a failure in "W3C Process" but I suggest that that document be revisited and revised in the light of the need to consult an existing technology community. Specifically, I would propose that the community be consulted at the stage that a Requirements document is first being considered. It isn't impossible for a WG developing a complex technology to consult and respond to a developing user community. The SVG 1.0 REC demonstrates that consultation and response to that consultation is possible. Many requests from the SVG community were fed in to the W3C and, at the risk of generalising, have appeared in the Requirements documents for SVG 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0. In my view, the SVG process contrasts profoundly with the frustrating fig leaf consultations about W3C XML Schema and XPath 2.0/XSLT 2.0/XQuery 1.0 which took place last year (or was it the year before?) and earlier this year on XML-Dev. Another facet of the SVG process that usefully bears comparison with the XPath/XSLT/XQuery process is that the Chairman and Editor(s) of the SVG specs interacted (usually) promptly and frankly with the community. In fact, they were in effect part of the community. Apart from the notable work done by Michael Kay, as an author and on XSL-List, can such involvement be claimed for XPath/XSLT/XQuery? It seems to me that involvement can make the difference between WG members being in touch with a community or being out of touch. The more scrutiny that W3C specs receive at early stages of development the better. When frustrating pseudo-consultations become the norm, the W3C can't be surprised when those who might usefully comment choose to make better use of their time than provide input which will be ignored. Hopefully Liam will recognise the need for version 2 and later of XML specs to authentically consult the relevant user communities. Andrew Watt
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








