[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

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:45:37 -0700
• In-reply-to: <20030619045623.A6F6513382B@b...>
• References: <20030619045623.A6F6513382B@b...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

 >>I've used EXSLT. It is not that well designed
 >
 > How so?

Ok, my intent was not to insult you or Dave or the other principal
contributors to EXSLT, and I guess I made an overstatement. EXSLT is
actually a fine piece of work. My main grudge goes to func:function
and is probably more related to its implementation in Xalan than to
its actual design, although I wish one could just convert a template
into a function instead of making a distinction between templates and
functions.

 >>it is definitely not standard
 >
 > What do you mean?  What do you call "standard"?

No time to go through the archives so here is my "facile" answer: I
call standard a specification released by one of the major standard
bodies out there, such as W3C, ECMA, ISO, etc. I understand why this
may or may not be important to different people so no need to start a
big argument here, but if you can summarize your position in a
sentence or two go ahead.

 >>and implementations [expletive deleted] (in particular, Xalan 2.5.1 still has
 >>horrible bugs with func:function).
 >
 > That's like saying all implementations of automobiles [expletive deleted] because
 > the Ford Pinto used to catch fire a lot.

True. Only whoever decided to implement that stuff in Xalan and not
test it before releasing it is to blame :-( I'm sure other
implementations are better.

 > I'm glad it works for you.  It doesn't work for may others, as you
 > can easily tell in this thread.  As I've said often enough, forking
 > can be a very healthy thing.  I wave to you from the other tine.

I don't have extremely strong feelings about the whole story at this
point, so I don't have much interest being on either side of the
line. But let people who do have strong feelings push one way or the
other, and let's see what comes out of it.

-Erik

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: CDATA processing problem using Xerces-J validating parser
• Next by Date: RE: CDATA processing problem using Xerces-J validating parser
• Previous by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread