- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 23:02:28 -0500
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On Sun, 2018-03-04 at 07:59 +0000, Michael Kay wrote: > The red box on the XPath 1.0 and 2.0 specs was changed to a less > scary black box: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116/ > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214/ > > at the insistence of the XSL WG, who were horrified when they saw > what had been done (*). They were, however, asked for comments several weeks before it was done, and more than once. I seem to remember, though, it was a time when Sharon as chair of XSLT was having health problems. > It's a shame that the same change wasn't made to related docs such > as F+O at the same time. I think the red box is far too strong for a > spec that is "alive" in the sense that lots of people are using it > and there are other specs that reference it normatively. I think i prefer the black box, for what it's worth, with its milder wording. It's not inconceivable that i could change it, ideally given approval from the joint meeting again. > > (*) I believe that Sharon, as XSL WG chair, felt that the joint > XQuery/XSLT meeting had no authority to make changes to XPath 1.0. She'd have had a point for sure, since it wasn't a joint spec. > -- Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG Improving Web Advertising: https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/ Personal: awesome vintage art: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 04:02:35 UTC