Re: Implementing " and ' in literals
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, David Carlisle wrote: > > > > You seem to be missing the point completely. See my reply to David > > Carlisle. > > No, the point is that you can't change a specification from one > implementation. That's the entire HTML mess that XML was designed to > avoid: implementors adding features whenever they wanted leading > to a competitive race and total document inoperablility. I don't want to be competitive! I want to instigate change (for XPath 2.0, for what it's worth). When I joined this list it said it was for discussion of issues pertaining to the development of XSL and XPath. Should I try and stump up the thousands of dollars needed to join the w3c, or come up with good ideas and get support behind them for free first? > The specification may not be perfect, but the solution is to update the > specification, not to make a non conforming implementation. There aren't _any_ conforming implementations of XPath - anyone who reads the grammar carefully will know what I mean by that. I agree that extensions should be disabled by default, which is something I intend to do in the next release. It's a shame XPath has no namespace mechanism to make adding grammar extensions simple. -- <Matt/> Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org http://xml.sergeant.org XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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