RE: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List

I agree.  For instance Mozilla has indicated they would like to
implement EXSLT but not XSLT 2.  I don't know what libxml2 is thinking
(this is the PHP version of XLST).  Even Microsoft is currently on the
fence on implementing XSLT 2.

Bruce Rindahl

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Uche Ogbuji
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Pawson, David
Cc: EXSLT Mailing List
Subject: Re: [exslt] EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List

Pawson, David wrote:
> What is the point of requesting a function or extension
> that is already available in xslt 2.0?
>
> EXSLT is only as good as its implementations.
>
> What motivation can there be to implement something as
> a 1.0 extension when it is available as 2.0 base functionality?
>   

As you can see in the legend, there is a lot in EXSLT *now* that is also
available in XSLT 2.0.  Why did people implement those extensions?

Of course the answer is that implementing a handful of useful
functions/elements that happen to be similar to ones available in XSLT
2.0 is *much* simpler than implementing XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 itself. 
A hell of a lot easier.  Several implementors, including me, have
expressed the preference to move the most useful and sensible extensions
into EXSLT so that people don't have to deal with the XPath/XSLT 2.0
mess if they don't want to.


-- 
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/

_______________________________________________
exslt mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.exslt.org/list