RE: Re: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XSLT 2.0

>> As type-safety is pretty much a concession to Microsoft anyway

>This is rapidly becoming an urban myth, and it is rubbish. I won't try
to >state Microsoft's position for them, but a change as significant as
this >cannot be made if only one member organisation supports it, and
that is >certainly not the case in this instance.

Now I'm probably as pro-Microsoft as it is possible to get without
actively conjuring up Satan and working a deal but I must say that I had
the impression that Microsoft would like the type-safety, XSDL
integration etc. and that they would be active proponents of it. I have
not done any research on it, I have not gone around posting "This is all
because of Microsoft!" anywhere because I felt to do this I should have
proof, when I saw this 'Urban Myth' above however it struck me as very
sensible and likely posted by someone who had that proof. You say it's
wrong, that it is in fact an Urban Myth, this implies in some way (due
to the slipperiness of language) that Microsoft is not a strong
proponent of these things, is not exerting influence to get it done. Now
I'm wondering why in the world this particular Urban Myth would arise?


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