Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
 Very much agree with sentiments expressed re complexity. As a gamekeeper (stds developer) turned poacher (user) it seems to be true that: - the first standard works but has some problems - the second one/version solves the problems and adds 500% complexity - by then the original problems have work-arounds which are well understood and work So the second one often does not get serious take-up until a long time later. But somehow we should be learning how to do this better. Robin At 4:45 pm +0200 1/10/02, Eric van der Vlist wrote: >On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 16:23, Jeni Tennison wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> > 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"... >> >> Which of the requirements don't you agree with? Do you have >> requirements that aren't or can't be met using extensions to XPath 1.0 >> (e.g. for conditional expressions in XPath)? > >Basically the requirement I don't agree with is that it needs to be a >basis for XQuery and become strongly typed. > >More generally, I think that the balance of features between XPath and >XSLT 1.0 was pretty good (with maybe a couple of minor exceptions which >could be discussed such as document() and format-number() that could >have been part of XPath IMO) and shouldn't be radically changed. > >> In other words, are you >> saying that you don't think that XPath 2.0 is a good idea full stop >> (period), or are you saying that *this* XPath 2.0 isn't a good idea? > >I don't feel like a stone resisting any change and I must say not *this* >XPath 2.0 even though the XPath 2.0 I would like would be 100 times >closer to XPath 1.0 than to *this* XPath 2.0. > >> If it's the latter, then I think you've got a really good comment >> right there: "I was hoping that XPath 2.0 would meet my requirement to >> A, B and C but the complexity of XPath 2.0 means that the pain's not >> worth the gain. XPath 2.0 could be made simpler in order to satisfy my >> requirements without causing me pain by X, Y and Z." > >But my requirements A, B and C are so tiny that are completely masked by >the level of modifications which is envisioned. > >> I guess voting with your feet is OK, but that's what I meant about >> drawing the analogy with XLink. 2 or 3 years down the line we might >> realise that actually we did need some of the stuff that XPath 2.0 >> does, but we're not using it because it's not designed in the way we >> needed it to be. > >I don't want to sound negative, but I don't remember any of the comments >I have ever done to a W3C WG having ever been taken into account in a >positive way. > >> Another thing we could try is to have a switch that makes XSLT 2.0 use >> XPath 1.0. XSLT 2.0 has some really useful stuff (multiple output >> documents, grouping, result-tree-fragments out the window, >> user-defined functions) so it'd be a real shame if we couldn't use >> them just because we wanted to avoid XPath 2.0. > >If you say so I trust you that XSLT 2.0 must be a good thing! I'd note >though that the features you're mentioning are already implemented >through exslt. Having them as standard XSLT features would be great but >only if the price to pay can be lowered! > >Another concern I have is that I am not sure that it would be quickly >implemented and deploied in the major web browsers. Of course I can't >tell since I am not part of W3C, but do you have any commitment from >Microsoft about this? > >Thanks > >Eric >-- >Rendez-vous a Paris (Forum XML). > http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com >(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, Monsell EDM Ltd DeltaXML: "Change control for XML, in XML" Tel: +44 1684 592 144 Fax: +44 1684 594 504 Email: robin.lafontaine@d... http://www.deltaxml.com 
|
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
|
|||||||||
