[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I've used EXSLT. It is not that well designed, it is definitely not
standard, and implementations suck (in particular, Xalan 2.5.1 still
has horrible bugs with func:function).
I reckon that extending the function library fills a gap, but clearly
XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 provides much more. For example, with EXSLT, you
still have to say explicitly that you want to convert an RTF into a
node-set. Try explaining that to an XSLT beginner!
Many of the major new features of XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 cannot be
addressed by library extensions. For example being able to express
conditions and iterations in XPath is a HUGE plus from a syntactical
point of view (aren't you tired of xsl:choose?).
-Erik
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Of course, a lot of the gains you claim come from moving from XSLT
> 1.0 to XSLT 2.0 can be gained by simply extending XSLT's function
> library. Look at http://www.exslt.org or
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml05192003.asp
> for examples of what I mean.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Erik Bruchez [mailto:erik@bruchez.org]
> Sent: Tue 6/10/2003 10:14 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
>
>
>
> 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
> growth ;-)
>
> -Erik
>
> 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
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
|
