On Monday 03 July 2006 18:47, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 11:42 +0200, Buchcik, Kasimier wrote:
> > I think we intend to implement the missing areas. PSVI is a different
> > story, which we need to consider well when implementing XPath 2.0
> > and XSLT 2.0 in the future, since PSVI will have to be a part of those
> > new technologies, and we don't mant to make API-related mistakes, before
> > we see the whole picture; and that should be when XSLT 2.0 & Co. become
> > a W3C recommendation.
>
> The best time to look at XPath 2 and XSLT 2 is now: they are Canadiate
> Recommendations, and if there are things that can't be implemented, we
> want to know *before* they are final Recommendations.
>
> Of course, we already have quite a few implementations of XPath 2 in
> XQuery implementations, and the interoperability story there is pretty
> good, it turns out, but even so I strongly encourage you not to wait.
FWIW, I think the same.
I have/is implementing XQuery 1.0/XPath 2.0 and the specs are very stable,
especially the latest drafts. Close to all changes done and the ones
currently queued are editorial issues.
I have actually found it an advantage to implement while the specs have been
maturing, because the changes haven't been large enough to be a burden to
align with, and it have given the opportunity to report & fix bugs in the
specs which one discovers first when implementing.
It wouldn't surprise if it would be a long wait for the Rec "stamp", since the
W3C machinery can drag things out in this area.
(My personal views.)
Cheers,
Frans
_______________________________________________
xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
