RE: is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transforma

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: many W3C working groups, 
> including the XSLT 2 group, are simply nonresponsive to valid 
> concerns that go to the root of what they're doing.

You have to make decisions. There will always be some big architectural
choices that have to be made early in the process, and there will always
be some people who would prefer you to have made them differently. At
the stage when you are deciding whether to build a road or a railway,
comments affecting the decision are useful. When you've made the
decision - perhaps painfully - and are 90% of the way to finishing your
road, comments that say you should have built a railway are simply not
useful. They aren't useful even if they are right - which will generally
be unprovable.

Actually, as we get closer to finishing, I'm getting more and more
convinced that people will find the stronger typing useful, although I
was very sceptical when we started. Yes, XML Schema is a pig, but it
turns out you can live with it if you avoid looking at it too closely,
and that is what large numbers of people are in fact doing.

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx
work: Michael.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 





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