• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:21:24 -0400
• In-reply-to: <002601c3371d$814778f0$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <3EF2267F.8050206@b...>

At 12:17 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Maybe W3C should require the development of a reference
> > implementation for every spec. This is the way Sun's Java
> > Community Process works.
>
>W3C arguably goes beyond this: it requires multiple implementations of a
>specification before the spec goes from Candidate Rec to Rec status.

I would have infinitely more faith in that process - and the process by 
which Candidate Rec is occasionally skipped - if there was a public report 
acknowledging which implementations were used as the basis for the 
decision.  (And no, I wouldn't count member-private implementations as 
enough to move a spec forward.)

Right now, there's no way to evaluate whether the W3C goes beyond the JCP 
or IETF on this.  My under-informed understanding is that it does not.

• References:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: open source API to write XML infoset stream [Re: CreateXML]
• Next by Date: discarding WXS datatypes (was RE: modeling, validating)
• Previous by thread: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread