RE: XSLT 1.1 comments
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Adam wrote: > Time to throw a bit of grease on the fire. :-) [...] > Now, if there is no xsl:script tag, then I don't have to worry about making > those mappings because they are not part of the XSL namespace. This way, ALL > XSLT 1.1 transforms will work (I'll make sure that other namespaces fallback > gracefully). The fact of the matter is, NOT defining a language mapping is > more interoperable than having one. I suspect it's a done deal and therefore too late. It's an unfortunate side-effect of using the corporate resources of W3C members to fund and speed the generation and adoption of new specs (rather than letting them evolve alongside implementations a la RFC) which we just have to live with. Specific corporate pressures will always lead to useful but problematic features being implemented in this way, or even being elided. A similar problem appeared to exist over the proposals for XPointer to be able to point at arbitrary text spans, for example, but I haven't caught up on the resolution of that yet. ///Peter 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