Re: Status

Frans Englich wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 23:35, John L. Clark wrote:
>   
> Wouldn't it be a great idea to not duplicate what XSL-T 2.0 already
> provides?
> The XPath/XSL-T/XQuery specs are well written, strongly specified, and backed 
> up by a good test suite. I see several reasons: 1) Spend energy on stuff not 
> already done; 2) it's difficult and labour intensive to achieve a result of 
> the same quality the XSL/XQuery WGs did; and 3) don't fragment the market and 
> don't compete with XSL-T 2.0, that makes everyone happier.
>
> I see the purpose of EXSL-T as to improve interoperability. Instead of that 
> implementors implement their own similar but slightly different extensions, 
> it's done in a standardized way. I think that thinking would be enhanced by 
> filling the holes XSL-T 2.0 has, instead of adding a similar but slightly 
> different layer.
>   

Yes, this is something we have kept in mind.  We want to have as much
coverage of XPath/XSLT 2.0 (X*2.0) as we can, without coming too close. 
By the "too close" part, I mean that I think we can offer almost all the
goods X*2.0 do without changing the fundamental (and much more elegant)
nature of the X*1.0 specs.

For sure, we also plan to go ahead of X*2.0 in some areas.

> Personally, what I would like to see is strong specification of what the 
> extensions does, and a test suite. The XSL-T 2.0 WG is working on a test 
> suite, and perhaps that format can be re-used for specifying a future EXSL-T 
> test suite. On the other hand, perhaps I've gotten brain damaged by reading 
> F&O and the others..
>   
Interesting.  Any chance you could keep tabs on that for us, and perhaps
help adapt it for EXSLT use?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/