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