David Carlisle wrote:
Although one should probably note that because of the W3C's rather
cavalier attitude to maintaining standards, the question in the
subject line is not well posed: The set of legal Qnames changed
between XML 1.0 edition 4 and edition 5, so the meaning of \c which is
defined by reference to the XML spec depends on which edition 1.0 of
XML is being implemented
David
Well said and somewhat collaborated by E.R.Harold in
http://www.cafeconleche.org/oldnews/news2008December8.html
You have to read the full article on his site to put this into
perspective regarding the 5th edition. As an implementor, this Qname
change presents for me yet another hurdle. So what's new in the
loneliness of the long distance X* runner?
<cutdown-quote>
Perhaps the time has come to say that the W3C has outlived its
usefulness. ... Between schemas and XML 1.0 5th edition, they same
intent on doing the same thing to XML. ... XSLT 2 and XPath 2 were
still-born, and the much more pragmatic XSLT 1.1 was killed. Maybe
XQuery, but even that is far more complex and less powerful than it
should be due to an excessive number of use cases and a poorly designed
schema type system. I think we might all be better off if the W3C had
declared victory and closed up shop in 2001.
</cutdown-quote>
-- Justin Johansson
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--