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

Re: Doc vs. Data

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Doc vs. Data
• From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)
• Date: 09 Jun 2003 15:04:10 -0700
• In-reply-to: <p04330107bb0a7a3afdfd@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <01dc01c32d46$589a8c70$6401a8c0@pcukmka><m3n0grno1f.fsf@t...><p04330107bb0a7a3afdfd@[192.168.254.4]>
• Sender: ari@l...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> writes:

> At 10:44 AM -0700 6/9/03, K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> 
> >Just as long as "everyone else" doesn't include the maintainer of the
> >XXX 1.0 processor you use.
> 
> Are any of the open source XSLT processors clean enough to be
> plausibly forked? The only one I've spent any time exploring (Saxon)
> gave me shivers, it was so convoluted.

Before forking, did you consider asking the maintainer if he actually
plans to drop support for 1.0? I heard him make no such announcement,
but I also can't see any statements to the contrary.

So far, Saxon is the only Java 2.0 processor I know of. Xalan doesn't
as much as mention XSLT 2.0 on its webpage.

Re the source, I use a modified Saxon XPath engine in my code. I finnd
Saxon 7.x much more navigable than 6. For comparison in complexity,
see http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200211/msg00815.html

Ari.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Doc vs. Data
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• References:
  • RE: Doc vs. Data
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: Doc vs. Data
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)
  • Re: Doc vs. Data
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: RE: Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Descriptions for XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Doc vs. Data
• Next by thread: RE: Doc vs. Data
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread