Re: XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequences or sequence reference
Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:05 AM, Michael Kay wrote: > > (a) nested sequences > As I am tired of asking for (a) and learning from all prior > experience, I absolutely don't have any illusions these will be > part even of XSLT 4. > Therefore, Isn't it high time for *EXSLT 2*? I think so (for some time now.) Unfortunately, the EXSLT community is not so responsive for now (XProc is not so innocent here :-p.) Actually I developed a few extensions and I was naturally tempted to include the string "exslt2" somewhere in the namespace URI used. I understand your concerns about the adoption of new features in XSLT 2.1, but I don't think this is desperate. I think the best we can do is imlplementing the extensions we need as individual projects. The availability of existing implementations could help discussions about an hypothetical EXSLT2. And I feel that EXSLT2 is the best way to have something accepted by the WG. > To the list of *nested sequences* and *references* I would also > add *memoisation*. > [...] > Florent has written his Java implementation and it is a matter > of days for a C# implementation of something similar ... :( to > surface out... Just to be sure, my implementation is for nested sequences, not memoisation. > By not standardizing we will very soon find ourselves with a > number of incompatible definitions of such functions and will > have to face all the resulting portability issues. I agree. But we can maybe try to have common XSLT APIs for similar extensions (I never use an extension without defining its own XSLT module that exposes a public API through XPath functions, hiding the extension machinery mecanism.) If those extensions are useful and used, new use cases will show up, and specifications will refine... And that mecanism is the best advantage for adoption by a body like W3C. > Let's be realistic and pragmatic and not wait in the next ten > years for a committee blessing. We have EXSLT and EXSLT has > worked well in the past and served real needs. Sure. But the past showed also that they weren't opposed, by complementary. EXSLT helped to open new directions, to show some real-world implementations of new features, and maybe more important yet which one users were requesting for. I am convinced that something like EXSLT does facilitate adoption by the WG. > I appeal to the EXSLT community to respond and provide the > definitions of the above three features -- in the name of the > ideas this movement (I still believe) stands for. I agree. Even if I would have said the *XSLT 2.0* community... Regards, -- Florent Georges http://www.fgeorges.org/
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format