People, who don't know, don't understand and haven't worked with XSLT
2.0 may say such things.
Ah, the dangers of selective quoting.
In relation to XSLT 2 / XPath 2, I don't think E.R.Harold believes these are
in themselves poor technologies; he's just commenting (at least as of 2008)
that the number of implementation is/was rather solitary i.e. presumably
referring to just Saxon seriously playing in the field. If he thought
otherwise, then, like yourself and most others here, I would certainly
disagree also and, further, wouldn't be wasting my time pursuing a C++
implementation.
He's mainly on about the conundrum surrounding XML 5th edition to which
my thoughts were:
"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?"
Accordingly I offer my apologies if anyone misinterpreted me and thought
I was supporting "disparaging" comments towards XSLT 2 / XPath 2.
For the record, E.R.Harold is certainly not alone in his feelings about
XML 5th edition. Here are notable commentaries by other well-known
personalities:
Rick Jelliffe: Why I think XML 1.0 (fifth edition) is wrong-headed.
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/12/why-i-think-xml-10-fifth-editi.html
James Clark on XML 1.0 5th edition:
http://blog.jclark.com/2008/10/xml-10-5th-edition.html
Tim Bray: Supporting James Clark's position
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2008OctDec/0019.html
Michael Kay on XML 1.0 5th edition:
http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/07/xml105e#comment0008
David Carlisle on XML 1.0 5th edition:
http://dpcarlisle.blogspot.com/2008/10/xml-10-fifth-edition.html
Regards
Justin Johansson
Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
<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.
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>
--~--