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

RE: 1.0 and 2.0 and suitability for tasks

Subject: RE: 1.0 and 2.0 and suitability for tasks
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:09:48 -0400
RE:  1.0 and 2.0 and suitability for tasks
At 02:50 PM 8/24/2005, Mike wrote:
Assessment of risk in moving to a new technology is something that each
organisation has to do for itself. I personally find it difficult to
understand why some organisations are much more prepared to take these risks
than others - it seems to have very little to do with any objective
assessment, more on subjective attitudes. There are a lot of organisations
using Saxon 8.x successfully for applications that are definitely
mission-critical; at the same time I can't fault someone who advises against
it on grounds of caution.

Yes, this is a subtle problem.

For many organizations, it amounts to a question not only of "is X a fact" but also of "how can I be reasonably sure that X is a fact". Lacking local, trusted knowledge that 2.0 is strong, well-suited to the tasks for which it is proposed, and won't blow up (or do whatever else you're afraid of), broad uptake and support from a range of vendors, plus a reputation for portability/interoperability earned outside a particular proprietary framework, serve as warrants that "even if I don't yet understand personally why it's so much better, I won't be stuck high and dry if I go there".

Then too, what's prudent caution for one outfit in one context might be head-in-the-sand delinquincy for another in another context. "Let's wait and see" is often the best approach to take until the exact moment when it isn't. It's knowing when that moment is, that's tricky. (So yes, these decisions are often made subjectively.)

BTW, as for learnability -- it's true that learning to be a power user of XSLT 2.0, where doing sophisticated things shouldn't require knowledge of baroque workarounds, may prove to be more straightforward than 1.0. Yet just as much allocation of long-term memory as 1.0 demands, if not more, may be necessary to handle all the new stuff in 2.0, with all its ins and outs. Allocation of human long-term memory -- the development and refinement of our own skills -- is famously expensive. Honestly, I think the jury's still out on this one.

So I think the best thing we XSLTers can do for now is try 2.0 and assess it on our own, not paying too too much attention to the marketers either way.


====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================

Current Thread


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.