Lists Home |
Date Index |
As languages, XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 are very much flawed. Think about
the RTF hell, the minimal function library, the heavy syntax for
conditionals and calling templates, the inability to iterate through
anything but node-sets, etc. I see XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 as much
needed fixes to the original specifications. An XSTL 2.0 program
(stylesheet) of medium to high complexity will be much easier to write
and understand than the same program in XSLT 1.0. Download Saxon 7 and
play with it to see for yourself.
Also, there is a natural need for more functionality. If you were to
look at the evolution of Java over the last eight years, what would
you find out? My guess is that Java has largely beaten the market
Dave Pawson wrote:
> At 21:54 09/06/2003 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
>> And your conclusion is?
>> I think that if you actually measure the size of the languages by number
>> of productions, operators, elements, attributes, etc, then you find
>> XPath has grown by about 70% and XSLT by around 40% - which is an annual
>> growth rate of about 10-15%. The rest of the growth in the document
>> sizes represents more thorough specification of each language feature.
> I wonder what the reaction will be when the server side users start
> to experiment?
> A quick laugh, then back to 1.0?
> regards DaveP