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