Then it would seem to me that if their becomes a need to fill the position
of the XSLT 2.x editor due to the well deserved retirement of Dr. Kay
Quite strange statement!
Just a few things:
1. This would be the worst possible thing to happen. The XSLT 2.0 Spec
is a huge achievement, why should one of its main heroes retire?
2. As I already said, I would personally welcome spreading the
positive influence of such great people on other related W3C
specifications.
3. W3/company politics discussions certainly do not belong to the
topics of this mailing list.
4. I speak only as an individual and my opinions do not express in any
way the position of any other individuals or organisations.
Anyway, let's keep to the topic of any OP and not turn into completely
new and unrelated ones.
--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
On 2/16/07, M. David Peterson <m(_dot_)david(_at_)mdptws(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:40:54 -0700, Dimitre Novatchev
<dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Hopefully they will incorporate Dr. Kay's lexical and grammar
> definition (at least as a matter of style) in a 2.1 or Errata version
> of the recommendation.
An interesting point of discussion. If I am remembering correctly, Dr.
Kay once stated (whether in jest or in all seriousness, I couldn't be
certain) that the next specification for XSLT would be developed/edited by
someone other than himself. If this is, in fact, how things turn out,
given the fact that,
* MSFT was not involved with the development of the XSLT 2.0 spec and yet
have since repented of their evil ways ;), to now embrace XSLT 2.0,
currently and actively developing an implementation as we speak.
* MSFT is coming at the specification from a somewhat neutral
perspective, yet have both publicly admitted they are working on an
implementation and committed to providing CTP's as they become available
over the next year.
* MSFT has both the resources and power to actively court a lead editing
position on a W3C specification they have interest in.
Then it would seem to me that if their becomes a need to fill the position
of the XSLT 2.x editor due to the well deserved retirement of Dr. Kay, who
better to represent the ongoing development and refinement of the
specification than the company who, through baptism by fire, is coming to
understand the most intimate details of the 2.0 specification, and as
such, is well suited to locate where any potential problems exist, and
well capable of providing the editorial resources for any necessary errata
to the 2.0 as well as, if/when necessary a 2.1+ release of a new
specification?
Of course, I have my own feelings on the matter in regards to the person
at MSFT in whom I feel would best fill this position, though this is
obviously not the type of discussion that would be appropriate to take
place on-list, though if anyone has interest in this discussion off-list,
by all means, let's have this discussion, as it seems to me to be a pretty
important one if, in fact, the need were to arise.
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |
http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--