XSLT 2.0 reg doc

found em

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xslt20req-20010214

a little birdie told me

cheers, jim fuller


----- Original Message -----
From: "cutlass" <cutlass@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re:  Re: Re: ?XSLT Repository?


> hello all,
>
> > >
> > > Of these three www.vbxml.com and xsltsl.sourceforge.net contain 100%
> pure XSLT
> > > solutions.
>
> it is clearly stated, in EXSLT, where there is a particular implementation
> in EXSLT; that is EXSLT,XSLT, M$, or FOURTHOUGHT parser, the focus of the
> EXSLT effort is two-fold;
>
> a) generating function definitions through EXSLT meta data format,
seperate
> from implementation.
> b) generating implementations that adhere to functions definition ( at
least
> we try, hehe ).
>
> in no way is EXSLT promoting less then 100% compatible solutions within
> XSLT, one of the main aspects of EXSLT is if someone wants to create a
> particular implementation, say in javascript, and use EXSLT syntax within
> their code, they are making more portable code, in addition,
implementators
> (Fourthought python xslt parser,jd.xslt XSLT processor, LibXSLT for gnome
> parser, SAXON parser all implement some EXSLT functions and hopefully will
> go the whole hog...someday ) are building in these functions to make
things
> portable across parsers.
>
> > > All three are limited and incomplete, are created by small groups of
> people and
> > > therefore much more needs to be accomplished.
>
> i know that the EXLST effort initially involved a fairly diverse group
> within XSLT community, but i think that all specs suffer from the bias of
> their creators ?
>
>  In addition, now that standard bodies such as OASIS and W3 are above the
> waterline and much more accessible to the dev community at large we tend
to
> expect to standardize everything or at least spark off another process to
> create a new specification, or in this case a new library; a quick look at
> the W3 home page confirms this. The W3 is suffering from the success of
xml
> core spec, vastly divergent groups can work away on specs, knowing that
they
> will be able to integrate with other efforts, this is good, but when a new
> web developer is presented with XML,XSLT,RELAXNG,RDF,SOAP,SVG to develop
> with frankly they get a little lost, which is the primary reasoning for
> developing libraries of functions for immediate use.
>
> > > I think that these examples show why a W3C-developed Standard XSLT
> Template Library
> > > would be an extremely valuable and useful (self-implementing)
> specification.
>
> a pure XSLT library is more tactical in scope, its something that is
> immediately useful with respect to creating XSLT, but i don't think its an
> OASIS or W3 effort, its a project at sourceforge probably, with the dev
> community at large adding to it. Though (as the people from all these
> efforts full well now ), it tends to be a small group that actually submit
> implementations, not to mention coordinating engineering stds, etc.
>
> before embarking on creating a library, i for one would like to see some
> things added/edited/deleted to XSLT 2.0, based on the learning of these
> efforts.
>
> btw it seems to be time again to start up discussion of XSLT 2.0 with
> respect to this thread ( everyone back from vacation .... ), can anyone
from
> W3 comment on progress re XSLT 2.0, and also resend draft req again, i
cant
> seem to find it, in the lovely new XSLT generated W3 page.
>
> cheers, jim fuller
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list