[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Andrew Watt wrote:
> jenglish@flightlab.com writes:
> > I took a quick look. Typed data, by way of the PSVI,
> > is now firmly embedded in the XPath, XQuery and XSLT
> > data models.
> > That was all the triage I needed. I won't be using these
> > technologies at all.
>
> If the WG can define a conformance level that allows stylesheet authors to
> write XSLT 2.0 stylesheets without having to worry about W3C XML Schema
> types, would you still feel the same?
That depends on how it's presented.
If there were one spec defined solely in terms of
elements, attributes and text, and another built on
top of that one that added typed data, then sure,
I'd use the former and simply not bother with the latter.
If OTOH there's a single spec (or 10) with PSVI-typed
data deeply intertwingled into the data model, with
a conformance level specified in an annex saying what
parts of the spec can be ignored, then no, I'd be
more inclined to ignore the whole thing.
> If so, can you explain why?
Because I'm getting cranky in my old age. I have very
little tolerance for labyrinthine specs and overly complex
technology anymore.
> > (That said, there is some neat new stuff in XSLT and XQuery.
> > It's worth checking out -- at leisure -- to mine for ideas.)
>
> There is a lot of nice stuff in XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0.
>
> If the WG can produce a coformance level which lets you use that nice, new
> stuff but without bothering with PSVI and types would you be happy?
Oh, I'll be happy in any event. I can always take the good ideas
in XSLT 2.0 and implement them in my own toolset if that turns out
to be less work than learning XSLT 2.0 itself.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
