Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Erik Bruchez" <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:33:01 -0700
- Thread-index: AcMvfGkuAFsZRaFSSXyzahS0oSbDCAAATRuO
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
Of all the things beginners have difficulty with I'd expect that telling them they need an explicit function call to convert a RTF to a node set ranks low in complexity compared to just explaining XSLT's functional nature or even worse explaining the static and strong typing rules of XSLT 2.0.
Personally I think something like EXSLT hits the 80/20 point for what people want from XSLT based on my experiences with our users. However this is not to say XSLT 2.0 does not have desirable features that cannot be implemented using just extension functions such as the notion of sequences vs. nodesets.
From: Erik Bruchez [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tue 6/10/2003 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
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?).