Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xml-dev Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - Re: [xml-dev] Saxon and Sun Serializer problems? >Thread Next - Re: [xml-dev] Saxon and Sun Serializer problems? RE: [xml-dev] Saxon and Sun Serializer problems?To: "'Andrew Welch'" <andrew.j.welch@-----.--->, "'G. Ken Holman'" Date: 6/1/2009 10:48:00 AM > > From http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116 > > > XSLT is not intended as a completely general-purpose XML > transformation language. Rather it is designed primarily > for the kinds of transformations that are needed when XSLT > is used as part of XSL. > I often quote this sentence as an example of where you need to read between the lines of a specification. Although I have no specific knowledge of how this sentence came to be there, I have always imagined that it was probably added as a result of a somewhat inconclusive debate about some language feature that someone considered either too general-purpose or too special-purpose; such a discussion about one specific feature can quickly degenerate into a philosophical discussion about the general strategy, probably with two people taking strongly opposed views and everyone else looking at their watches and wondering how long it will go on; after wasting a couple of hours on such a discussion, no-one likes to close it without an action, so the chair calls a vote and a sentence like this gets added to the spec to reflect the majority view. Note the caveats: "completely", "primarily". What such a sentence tells you is not that the WG had a clear view on the matter, but rather the converse: that the question was considered open for debate. This kind of thing can also arise from a challenge that refers back to the original requirements: "The charter says the language should be for styling, but you've designed a general transformation language". "Oh no we haven't: look, it says so here." Or it could be a defence against a challenge that the language was not general-purpose enough: "We need a facility to call trigonometric functions" "Oh no you don't, this isn't a general-purpose programming language: look, it says so here." From reading the sequence of drafts leading up to XSLT 1.0, one gets the impression that the language became more general-purpose with each successive draft, so what the WG was actually doing was at odds with what it claimed to be doing in this sentence. Regards, Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkay _______________________________________________________________________ XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php | ||||||
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | Mobile | Full Site | |||
|
