[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0

• To: 'Jonathan Robie' <jonathan.robie@d...>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:42:56 -0500

Thanks Jonathan.  Microsoft has "one ring to bind 
them all".  The W3C has Berners-Lee.

My empathy for TimBL increases every time I see 
that sort of description.  God help us all if he 
ever retires.

Ever wonder why a consortium needs to be private 
if all of the competitors of worth are members? 
Who or what is the monster to be feared in this 
cartoon?

"Scooby Doo, where are you?"

len


From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@d...]

In W3C terms, you are asking what the entrance criteria are for Proposed 
Recommendation:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html#RecsPR

Here's the relevant portion:

>Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Proposed 
>Recommendation, the Director must be satisfied that:
>    * the Working Group has fulfilled the relevant requirements of the 
> Working Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements 
> documents. The Director must be satisfied with the rationale for any 
> relevant requirements that have not been fulfilled;
>    * the Working Group has 
>
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html#formal-address>f
ormally 
> addressed issues raised during the previous review or implementation 
> period (possibly modifying the technical report);
>    * the Working Group has reported all 
>
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html#WGArchiveMinorit
yViews>formal 
> objections;
>    * each feature of the technical report has been implemented. 
> Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two 
> interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director believes 
> that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical to the success of a 
> technical report, the Director may advance the technical report to 
> Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience. 
> In this case, the technical report status section should indicate why the 
> Director advanced the technical report directly to Proposed
Recommendation;
>    * the Working Group has satisfied any other announced entrance 
> criteria (e.g., any announced in the request to advance to Candidate 
> Recommendation).
So each feature must be implemented, and there is a strong preference for 
two *interoperable* implementations of each feature, where the criteria for 
determining interoperability is left to the Working Groups.

>>Are any public source?

There is no requirement that an implementation be public source. In most 
cases, there is an open source implementation, but keep in mind that the 
implementation is not normative in any way.

>>Are they tied normatively to the spec or informatively?

They are tied to the spec only as an existence proof, showing that the spec 
can be implemented.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Previous by thread: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by thread: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread