Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
On 1 Oct 2002, Eric van der Vlist wrote: > On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:54, Jeni Tennison wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > > > > lets be honest, Jeni, the silence from most users is mainly due to > > > the investment in time to review the bewildering array of documents > > > > Yes, and I think that's the same reason why W3C XML Schema got so far > > before people started to complain about its complexity -- people won't > > read the specs until they need to in order to use the technology, by > > which time it's usually too late to change the technology into > > something useful. (Though I guess that led to RELAX NG; perhaps > > that's a route to follow...) > > I don't know how representative it is, but there is also at least one > person (me) who has started to read these specs, seen that he didn't > agree with the requirements and didn't consider that the addded > complexity over XPath 1.0 is not worth the pain IHO and just can't > comment because he has no comments except "I'll stay with XPath 1.0 and > exslt as much as I can"... This is pretty much my opinion and that of the jaxen team (http://jaxen.org/). XML without XPath-1 is pretty painful. XML without XPath-2 is perfectly conceivable, if I have XPath-1. -bob
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format