• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
• Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:12:03 +0100
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20030512115446.03c35940@n...>
• References: <20030512155037.GA19357@t...><5.2.0.9.0.20030512104832.03c35940@n...><B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F805C1F9AB@R...><5.2.0.9.0.20030512104832.03c35940@n...>

At 14:02 12/05/2003 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:

>For simple datatypes, there's only one game in town. And that limits our 
>choices somewhat...and beyond that, our *requirements* force us to support 
>these datatypes. They also force us to support documents that do not 
>contain them, including merely-well-formed and DTD-governed documents.

Perhaps W3C, or at least this WG, got the requirements right first time?
I've only ever seen one set of requirements that didn't change over time,
and I wrote those after I'd delivered the software, for ISO9000 sake.

Are they really cast in stone?

regards DaveP

• References:
  • Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What are the characteristics of a good type system for XML?
• Next by Date: Re: xsd to xml
• Previous by thread: Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• Next by thread: Some random noise on rational type systems for XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread