Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:21:27PM +0700, James Clark wrote:
> Would you be satisfied if language bindings in Appendix C moved into a
> separate W3C spec (with it's own namespace URI) and the syntax for the
> language attribute on xsl:script changed from
> 
>   language = "ecmascript" | "javascript" | "java" | qname-but-not-ncname
> 
> into simply
> 
>   language = qname-but-not-ncname
> 
> ?

  Yes, that would be an improvement IMHO.

> If there were no administrative overhead in progressing W3C specs, I
> think I would favor that approach.

  Hum, I understand ... Publishing then as a NOTE from the WG
should not be too costly. Bringing them to REC is another story ...
  In perspective, C(++) binding wasn't added to DOM by lack of
perceived resources. The fact that existing bindings were glued into
the REC also made it more difficult to provide those bindings later on
(or fix existing ones when broken).

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard@xxxxxxxxxx  | libxml Gnome XML toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list