Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
Hello Alexey Gokhberg wrote: > > > > This means that my original statement IS TRUE. Java implementors will > > enjoy benefits from XSLT 1.1 standartization, while Python and C > > developers will have to "get together to come up with standard binding > > for ... extension functions ..." > > Michael Kay wrote: > > Speaking personally, I can't see any reason why the XSL WG would object to > including a standard language binding for any language if there is > sufficient interest and consensus among users and implementors to create a > specification. Unless of course politics gets in the way, but I find it hard > to imagine that this would happen with Python or C. > As the matter of fact, W3C is a private organization, which serves interests of its members. It is, by design, not a standard body. The fact that W3C acts as a standard body, having an enormous influence, does not change anything. Apparently, W3C members are interested in providing the first-class treatment for Java-based XSLT implementations only, and have no interest in supporting any other language platforms. On the other hand, W3C has absolutely no obligations to the non-member parties. In particular, non-member XSLT vendors have absolutely no reasons to request and expect any services from W3C. They must find another way to solve their private problems. Considering these facts, I have to agree with you. When the non-member asks W3C: "Why don't you treat Python, C++, etc. platforms equally to Java?", the correct answer is: "Because we have no interest. Because it is not our duty. Because it is your problem". Regards, Alexey Gokhberg 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