Re: second implementation of XSLT 2.0?

Hey Wendell,

I think we can safely hedge our bets that with Gestalt and Altova we
should be covered.

The question I have (and I think I know the answer which is "no, they
are the same general source code base so they only count as one) is
whether or not Saxon.NET can be considered a separate implementation.

Does anyone know what qualifies as a separate implementation and what does not?

Either way, I think we're safe with Gestalt and Altova but if
Saxon.NET provides backup (and potentially Xalan if the rumors prove
to be true) then that makes things all the better :)

On 11/22/05, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 11/22/2005, Bob DuCharme wrote:
> >Before a W3C Candidate Recommendation advances to Proposed
> >Recommendation status, "the Working Group should be able to demonstrate
> >two interoperable implementations of each feature."[1] So far, we've got
> >Saxon for 2.0, but what else?
>
> I'm glad Bob has posted this since I'm interested in the very same question.
>
> I've been getting more experience with the 2.0 versions (using Saxon)
> and finding to my considerable gratification that it goes very
> smoothly. There really isn't much you need to "unlearn" from 1.0
> (basically, the way a few functions work), which is an excellent
> thing: it means that 1.0 continues to be useful, as a stepping stone
> to the more powerful language if nothing else. 2.0 adds a lot, but
> without the cumbersome schema-dependencies we were afraid of (the
> committee got that right), and without taking anything away that I can see.
>
> And 2.0 *is* more powerful. Features I've had reason to be glad about:
>
> * Grouping: easier and more fun even for those of us who've
> internalized the 1.0 tricks
> * Transparent processing of results (wow!)
> * User-authored functions (and how!)
> * More powerful XPath (for example, with key use=".//*/local-name()"
> you can return a set of elements that contain elements with a given
> name -- nifty)
>
> ... and there are other nice features too (tunnel parameters, anyone?)
>
> All this makes Bob's question very relevant at this stage: as a fan
> of XSLT 1.0, I think its fate may be tied to 2.0, so I'd like 2.0 to
> succeed, and not just for its own sake.
>
> But as Bob mentions, two interoperable implementations of each
> feature are needed for the spec to be eligible for Rec status.
>
> It would be nice to know who is working on this, so we can cheer them on.
>
> Cheers,
> Wendell
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> 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
> ======================================================================
>
>


--
<M:D/>

M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com