Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List
Uche Ogbuji <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xslt.extensions |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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/