[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay wrote:
>
> >
> > Comparison (number of printed pages of the specification)
> >
> > xPath 1.0 xPath 2.0 increase
> > ----------------------------------
> > 45 254 564%
> >
> >
> > XSLT 1.0 XSLT 2.0 increase
> > ----------------------------------
> > 128 385 301%
> >
>
> And your conclusion is?
Your XSLT book now stands at 938 pages. How big will it be for XSLT
2.0? 1500 pages? Can a technology which takes 1500 pages to describe
truly be considered a "Web technology"?
The tendency of version 2.0 of the W3 technologies is to "add more
stuff". Version 2.0 of XSLT, xPath, and XML Schemas are all doing the
same thing - adding more stuff. I question that that is the right
approach.
I like the approach taken in RSS 1.0 - creating modules. I like the
idea that Rick Jelliffe has been espousing for years - no one schema
language can do everything; allow for multiple schema languages, which
can work together seamlessly. I like the idea of technologies designed
to encourage cottage industries to crop up to support niche markets.
What do I conclude? I conclude that the strategy for generating version
2.0 of many of the XML family of technologies is fundamentally flawed.
Unless the strategy is changed the entire family of technologies will
collapse from its own enormous weight. /Roger
|
