[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames


Subject: Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames
From: Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:19:24 +1030

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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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


Current Thread