OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>  >>I've used EXSLT. It is not that well designed
>  >
>  > How so?
> Ok, my intent was not to insult you or Dave or the other principal
> contributors to EXSLT, and I guess I made an overstatement. EXSLT is
> actually a fine piece of work. My main grudge goes to func:function
> and is probably more related to its implementation in Xalan than to
> its actual design, although I wish one could just convert a template
> into a function instead of making a distinction between templates and
> functions.

Interesting, given that func:function is actually the seed that spawned EXSLT. 
 EXSLT started off as a thread on xsl-list.  Everyone already knew they wanted 
exsl:node-set and the like, but in discussions of XSLT 1.1, folks decided that 
something like func:function was important.  As such proposals were presented 
and *thoroughly* debated on that very well-attended mailing list.

As such, func:function is one of the more thoroughly reviewed entries.

So again I think you may be overreacting from experience with one 
implementation.  I use func:function a *lot* in 4Suite, and it works very well 
for me.

>  >>it is definitely not standard
>  >
>  > What do you mean?  What do you call "standard"?
> No time to go through the archives so here is my "facile" answer: I
> call standard a specification released by one of the major standard
> bodies out there, such as W3C, ECMA, ISO, etc. I understand why this
> may or may not be important to different people so no need to start a
> big argument here, but if you can summarize your position in a
> sentence or two go ahead.

The position of *many* on this list is that there is a very high, ah, standard 
for calling something a "standard" and that, for example, W3C work product 
does not meet it /per se/, being that W3C is a mere industry consortium (in 
fact, the W3C is careful to say that hey produce "recommendations" not 
"standards".  I happen to think that this strictness is a sound position, 
though I don't think it should bound all uses of the word "standard".  That 
does mean, however, that it is not really meaningful to disparage something 
like EXSLT or SAX as "not a standard", because XSLT, RELAX NG, SOAP and other 
such technologies are also really only "standards" in the informal sense 
(notice: IIRC XML itself can be considered a true standard because there is an 
ISO annex that addresses it as an SGML subset).

Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
XML Data Bindings in Python - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/06/11/py-xml.html
Introducing Examplotron - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-x
Charming Jython - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jython.h
The commons of creativity - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x
A custom-fit career in app development - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS