<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>
People, who don't know, don't understand and haven't worked with XSLT
2.0 may say such things.
--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Justin Johansson
<procode(_at_)adam(_dot_)com(_dot_)au> wrote:
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>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--