xml-dev - Re: transformations

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Alexey Gokhberg <alexei@bluewin.ch>

> > After / if you get tired of this - there is a big probability that
> > there will be XSLT 2.0 or at least understanding what will
> > be XSLT 2.0
> >
>
> Is this understanding documented somewhere?

I think the only document we have is :

<rec source=http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt.html>

Abstract.

This specification defines the syntax and semantics of XSLT, which is a language for
transforming XML documents into other XML documents.

XSLT is designed for use as part of XSL, which is a stylesheet language for XML. In
addition to XSLT, XSL includes an XML vocabulary for specifying formatting. XSL specifies
the styling of an XML document by using XSLT to describe how the document is transformed
into another XML document that uses the formatting vocabulary.

XSLT is also designed to be used independently of XSL. However, XSLT is not intended as a
completely general-purpose XML transformation language. Rather it is designed primarily
for the kinds of transformations that are needed when XSLT is used as part of XSL.

...

G Features under Consideration for Future Versions of XSLT (Non-Normative)

</rec>

1. I think this document clearly says that "XSL is not a general-purpose XML
transformation language"

2. There is a big list of features listed ( that's why I think there should be XSLT v 2.0.
Those features hardly fit into version 1.2 ). I have a strange feeling  that even most of
those features are related to "better support of current XSLT domain" - but not all of
them.

There is really something strange. I think that people ( including me ;-) are usually
reading the first sentence of the Abstract, but not the   last one. Before checking it
today, I was under impression that "not for everything" is written on jclark.com, but not
on the WD.  Shame on me. I apologize.

Well, I still think that saying :

"XSLT is a language for transforming XML documents into other XML documents, but is not
intended as a completely general-purpose XML transformation language" is fuzzy ( no matter
it is really correct ;-)

I think this is the reason why everybody out there knows that "you should process XML with
XSLT if you care about standards, because it is a standard way to do that".

This is what I don't like. I think it it's premature to say this.

Rgds.Paul.