Re: XSLT 2.0

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>>>>> "Gorka" == GORKA VELEZ" <gvelez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Gorka> Why is Saxon the only popular xslt 2.0 processor??

I can't really comment about other processors, as I haven't tried any
of them. But I think it is fairly easy to see why Saxon is far more
popular then Gestalt:

1) Saxon is written in Java and Gestalt is written in Eiffel. So Java
programmers are naturally going to find Saxon more attractive, and
Eiffel programmers are naturally going to find Gestalt more
attractive. And there are far more people writing Java programs than
Eiffel programs.

This leaves using the XSLT processor from the command line and from
other languages or environments:

2) Saxon is a far more mature product than Gestalt, which is still not
yet fully compatible with the PR. And Michael Kay is able to spend
much more time developing and supporting Saxon than I am able to on
Gestalt.

3) In addition, Saxon has a Schema-aware implementation available for
commercial use, with an appropriate level of support.

None of these situations is likely to change in the near future
either.

    Michael> hand if (like many open-source developers) you're
    Michael> motivated more by technical creativity and/or a desire
    Michael> for immortal fame than by money, you're probably even
    Michael> more likely to be interested in doing version 1.0 of
    Michael> something rather than version 2.0 of something else.

Gestalt is an exception here, in as much as the motivation to develop
it was that a pure-Eiffel implementation of XSLT was wanted, and there
weren't any.
At the time (December 2003), the XSLT 2.0 was in a state where I could
have decided to go either way. After consulting Michael kay on the
pros and cons, I decided I might as well go for 2.0 - to me it was a
more interesting challenge.
-- 
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire