[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: "'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 10:42:10 -0500

Are the W3C implementations *reference* implementations 
or *sample* implementations?  IOW, how is the implementation 
tied to the specification in terms of features and proof 
of conforming and compliant implementation?  Are any public source? 
Are they tied normatively to the spec or informatively?

Anyone can code anything. That doesn't mean it works as a 
goodness proof or can be used to test, validate, or verify 
conformance and compliance.  ISO is quite sticky about that. 
Dick Puk gave us excellent advice on the topic and I am no 
expert here.  One will want to consult the relevant policy 
documents.

<hearsay>We did a few rounds on the topic in the X3D process given 
the stringent needs for client behavioral and rendering 
fidelity (particularly, behavioral fidelity).  AFAIK, reference 
implementations don't have be performant but they must 
strictly conform and comply.  Sample implementations just 
show that someone can implement the spec, but the meaningfulness 
of it is subject to interpretation.  If they cite an implementation 
as THE reference implementation, that is the one on which 
to base the decision, but again, read between the lines.</hearsay>

len

From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

At 12:17 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Maybe W3C should require the development of a reference
> > implementation for every spec. This is the way Sun's Java
> > Community Process works.
>
>W3C arguably goes beyond this: it requires multiple implementations of a
>specification before the spec goes from Candidate Rec to Rec status.

I would have infinitely more faith in that process - and the process by 
which Candidate Rec is occasionally skipped - if there was a public report 
acknowledging which implementations were used as the basis for the 
decision.  (And no, I wouldn't count member-private implementations as 
enough to move a spec forward.)

Right now, there's no way to evaluate whether the W3C goes beyond the JCP 
or IETF on this.  My under-informed understanding is that it does not.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: whitespace normalization (was Re: Create XML)
• Next by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• 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