On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Vladimir Nesterovsky
<vladimir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm sorry if this post opens a new thread, as I'm answering to my original
> post, which probably have no reference id assigned by a server.
>
>
> To clarify my position, I shall ask another question:
>
> Why xslt is not a ground for XProc?
>
> In my opinion it is a natural sequence of events:
>  a demand of pipelining, error handling, and so on, is appearing;
>  to answer the the demand people design extensions to xslt (functions and
> instructions);
>  these extensions are discussed and standardized;
>  XProc is appearing as something based on xslt.

I think that you should take a look at the requirements and use cases
doc for XProc

http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-requirements/

whereas I am with you that one of the reasons why something like XProc
is emerging is because of the clunky approaches using XSLT, Ant,
Cocoon, and a whole host of psuedo pipelining approaches.

to be specific, XProc is a response to a defined set of requirements,
but it is not 'based on xslt'.

hth, Jim Fuller