RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

[Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx]

Peter Flynn <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

For one thing, it's not too late.  The thing is in draft stage.  All or
most of the XSL WG members read this list, and do actually care about
people's thoughts.  I might remind you that the XSLT 1.1 extensions
mechanism is in response, for a large part, to discussions on this list
about how people really do need and want interoperable extensions, to the
degree that such a thing is possible.   If we have got it wrong, then we're
listening.  But so far you haven't convinced me with your arguments.

Engineering with a general audience in mind is damn hard.  I think the XSLT
1.1 spec has it about right, but clearly it's not perfect, and won't make
everone happy.  If you read it carefully, I think it's about as flexible as
such a mechanism can be.  If there's parts that are problematic to Perl,
please send comments -- we badly want constructive suggestions on how these
things might be fixed.  If you really don't want this at all, then start a
petition or something, and present it to the XSL WG or the W3C.  But my
impression is that the vast majority of users badly want some sort of
interoperabile extensions, without having to rewrite the extensions for
each processor.

And, if you truly want interoperable stylesheets, don't use extensions.
They are problematic, we have never said differently.  But it's better for
folks to use extensions than for the XSL WG to define mechanisms before
their time.  They are really meant to be a stop-gap measure until the
language fullfills 99% of what people need to do... which may be a while
yet.

-scott


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