Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

[Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx]

Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't understand this.  Why can't they?  Why can't processor
implementors
> band together to sort it out?  Why change the XSLT spec?
>
> In fact, why can't XSLT implementors in Python, C++, VB, Perl, Java and
other
> languages work together on this?

Do it.  XSLT 1.1 is on hold for a bit while we get some architectual
ramifications of the 2.0 design sorted out.  If you do it based on 1.0, and
the processor implementors band together in a way that the user community
agrees on, believe me, we'll be *very* happy to do the deletions to the 1.1
draft.  We didn't do this for the fun of it... it was from user requests.
With my selfish corporate hat on and blinders on, it doesn't matter to me
if Xalan's extensions are interoperable with other processors.  But the
user community, i.e. the xsl-list, the apache community, and our corporate
customers, have asked for it.  If you don't like the effort, make
constructive suggestions, write a complete alternate proposal, or start an
alternative effort.

Also, I believe the XSL WG would be very happy to put together some
conference calls among XSLT implementors to sort out concerns about
language independence in 1.1.

The thing about specifications for general usage is that no one viewpoint
is correct.  You might even find that some of your views are off-base.

> Actually, I missed the fact that DOM has an appendix with a Java binding.

> This is probably because at least they kept the Java-centricity strictly
to
> that appendix.  XSLT 1.1 does not do so.

It's supposed to be that way.  You should point out where we missed.

> Obvious choice is to form an OASIS TC

Good luck.

-scott






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