[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: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:52:36 -0700
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648446D@R...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648446D@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

 > Of all the things beginners have difficulty with I'd expect that
 > telling them they need an explicit function call to convert a RTF to
 > a node set ranks low in complexity compared to just explaining
 > XSLT's functional nature or even worse explaining the static and
 > strong typing rules of XSLT 2.0.

The way I see things, in a first phase most people just won't use the
typing features of XSLT 2.0 and just use it as a better XSLT 1.0. I
may be wrong. Time will tell.

Regarding the difficulties, I agree, but it's in general easier to
teach a language that is well-designed rather than one that is not. So
teaching XSLT's functional nature may be difficult, but at least it is
based on sound concepts. RTFs are not. In passing, you can use XSLT in
a very imperative style, and many people just use it this way.

-Erik

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@y...>

• References:
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• 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