Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
 I've used EXSLT. It is not that well designed, it is definitely not standard, and implementations [expletive deleted] (in particular, Xalan 2.5.1 still has horrible bugs with func:function). I reckon that extending the function library fills a gap, but clearly XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 provides much more. For example, with EXSLT, you still have to say explicitly that you want to convert an RTF into a node-set. Try explaining that to an XSLT beginner! Many of the major new features of XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 cannot be addressed by library extensions. For example being able to express conditions and iterations in XPath is a HUGE plus from a syntactical point of view (aren't you tired of xsl:choose?). -Erik Dare Obasanjo wrote: > Of course, a lot of the gains you claim come from moving from XSLT > 1.0 to XSLT 2.0 can be gained by simply extending XSLT's function > library. Look at http://www.exslt.org or > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml05192003.asp > for examples of what I mean. > > > ________________________________ > > From: Erik Bruchez [mailto:erik@b...] > Sent: Tue 6/10/2003 10:14 AM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0 > > > > As languages, XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 are very much flawed. Think about > the RTF hell, the minimal function library, the heavy syntax for > conditionals and calling templates, the inability to iterate through > anything but node-sets, etc. I see XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 as much > needed fixes to the original specifications. An XSTL 2.0 program > (stylesheet) of medium to high complexity will be much easier to write > and understand than the same program in XSLT 1.0. Download Saxon 7 and > play with it to see for yourself. > > Also, there is a natural need for more functionality. If you were to > look at the evolution of Java over the last eight years, what would > you find out? My guess is that Java has largely beaten the market > growth ;-) > > -Erik > > Dave Pawson wrote: > > At 21:54 09/06/2003 +0100, Michael Kay wrote: > > > > > >> And your conclusion is? > >> > >> I think that if you actually measure the size of the languages by number > >> of productions, operators, elements, attributes, etc, then you find > >> XPath has grown by about 70% and XSLT by around 40% - which is an annual > >> growth rate of about 10-15%. The rest of the growth in the document > >> sizes represents more thorough specification of each language feature. > > > > > > I wonder what the reaction will be when the server side users start > > to experiment? > > > > A quick laugh, then back to 1.0? > > > > regards DaveP > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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> > > > 
|
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
|
|||||||||
