On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:48:52PM +0100, Tobias Reif wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> 
> >>I agree that dependency on WXS is a bad aspect, but I think it won't be 
> >>required for all implementations.
> >>
> >   First news to me, how can you back-up that statement ?
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#import-schema
> "
> Issue 125 (schema-conformance):
> We need to describe a conformance level that does not require schema 
> support.
> "
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#issue-schema-conformance
> "
> Issue 125: schema-conformance
> 
> Description: We need to describe a conformance level that does not 
> require schema support.
> 
> Resolution: We decided that we should define a conformance level in 
> which schema processing was not required. The details, however, have not 
> been worked out.
> "

  Okay, interesting. I assume this will affect XPath2 (though XPath 1
had no conformance clause since it was targetted by embedding in other
specs)...

> >   Well that would probably lead to a complete revamp of
> > of the structure part.
> 
> 
> If that's what it takes to make the spec implementable (for you and 
> probably others), then this should be evaluated by the WG IMHO.

  The problem is that making "editorial" changes to a given revision
of a spec and keeping the rev level is find, but if it's a rewrite
it's also very dangerous, if both specs ends up diverging.

> >   I think Michael and Henry know me well enough, and that I propagated
> > that back to them. It's also clear that I tried an implementation within
> > libxml2 but it became quickly too painful that I focused on other targets.
> 
> 
> My personal POV is:
> I like XSLT, and I see room for improvement in XSLT 1.0 (regexen, 
> multiple output files, etc).
> So I'd be very happy to see XSLT evolve in a direction which addresses 
> some of these areas (as the current draft of 2.0 does in some of the 
> perhaps less controversial parts).
> But all that has no value if it won't be widely implemented, which can 
> only happen if (at leat some of the) implementers (of the currently 
> popular processors) can implement it, and see value in doing so.

  there is also little values in specs that are not fully implemented
if each tool/vendor has it's own supported subset you end up with 
something terrible for the users.

[...]
>    "I can't implement a specification I don't understand."
> 
> then that means that other implementers probably have rightful concerns 
> about the current draft as well.

  Hum, there might have been a misunderstanding, I didn't said that
for XPath2/XSLT2 but for XML Schemas Structure. And it's not a draft
it's a REC, i.e. cast in stone.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@xxxxxxxxxx  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list