[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns


grouping xslt 2.0
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!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.