[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: Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
• Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:37:32 -0400
• Cc: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <001701c32ec9$58589390$6401a8c0@pcukmka>; from michael.h.kay@n... on Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:54:39PM +0100
• References: <3EE4D7B1.85D735A9@m...> <001701c32ec9$58589390$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• Reply-to: veillard@r...
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:54:39PM +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> > 
> > Comparison (number of printed pages of the specification)
> > 
> > xPath 1.0   xPath 2.0   increase
> > ----------------------------------
> >   45          254         564%
> > 
> > 
> > XSLT 1.0     XSLT 2.0    increase
> > ----------------------------------
> >   128         385         301%
> > 
> 
> 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.

  Well, there is more dependancies still, if you add the Schemas ones, then
suddenly the production count increases drastically. Just the regexp 
productions for annex F of Datatype is about 37 productions, and most of 
those specs are actually not made from a formal grammar.
  I agree with you that pure number of page count from a spec might not
be a good indicator of the actual complexity of implementation though.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@r...  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

• References:
  • xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: most contested area of xml schema interoperability?
• Next by Date: [Fwd: Re: Documents, data and markup: YAML Ain't MarkupLanguage]
• 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