- From: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus <Scott_Boag@lotus.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:37:11 -0400
- To: www-dom-xpath@w3.org
> What exactly is "wrong" about MS's XSL interface? Would "Joe Webmaster" > care, or is this a more theoretical standards compliance issue? As Aaron said, the xpaths seem to use the default namespace. Joe Webmaster will care if his XPaths work one way with the DOM, and another way in XSLT processors. This comes up all the time when using XPaths. -scott "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareA To: <www-dom-xpath@w3.org> G-USA.com> cc: (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus) Sent by: Subject: Re: nasty namespace issue (was RE: Is minimalism a goal?) www-dom-xpath-request@w3 .org 05/08/2000 09:10 AM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus" <Scott_Boag@lotus.com> To: <www-dom-xpath@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: RE: nasty namespace issue (was RE: Is minimalism a goal?) > No. MSXML's approach is worse than not compliant. It is wrong... if you > try to fix it later, you break applications that used the broken approach. What exactly is "wrong" about MS's XSL interface? Would "Joe Webmaster" care, or is this a more theoretical standards compliance issue? Can it be addressed in an "ultra minimal" API or a "minimal" API?
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 09:36:54 UTC