- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:09:55 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6027 --- Comment #7 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2009-01-15 13:09:55 --- In the database community, there seems to be a high level of user tolerance for vendor extensions to standard languages. Users say they want portability, but when it comes down to it, they put other requirements higher on their list. So this proposal seems reasonable for XQuery. But in the world of programming languages, especially for use on the web, and especially in the XML community, I get the impression that users regard vendor extensions as poison, unless the extensions are implemented within a framework that allows applications to remain portable - which for syntax extensions is not the case. For XPath there is the additional complication that every host language (including those defined by W3C working groups) seems to want to define its own subset and/or superset. I believe it is very much in users' interests that XPath should be the same language wherever it is used. I would like to see a much stronger statement that syntax extensions to XPath are banned. Of course, we can't stop people defining XPath-like languages that have a different syntax, but we should come down very firmly against anyone describing such a language as XPath. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2009 13:10:05 UTC