Re: Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List

On a related, but separate note (thus the separate post), I do wonder 
how much effort would be required to implement an EXSLT for XSLT 1.0 and 
an EXSLT for XSLT 2.0 (B or SA - Don't think that the proposed 
extensions would require two separate specifications).  This would allow 
those who have already developed an XSLT 2.0 processor or who have 
committed (at least internally if not publically) to developing one to 
implement the functions that you, and others, have suggested.

Thoughts?

M. David Peterson wrote:

> Hi Dimitre,
>
> I can definitely see your side of things and agree, comments from Dr. 
> Kay would bring GREAT value to this conversation.  From both yours and 
> my standpoint, we have the tools we both want and need in regards to 
> Saxon/Saxon.NET.  I also feel we have reason to believe that Microsoft 
> will deliver at very least an XSLT 2.0-basic processor in the not too 
> distant future.  But of course, this is pure speculation.
>
> On the other side of the coin, I think there are enough vendors out 
> there who have balked at an XSLT 2.0 processor... at least for now... 
> but have expressed interest in something similar to what John and Uche 
> have proposed.  As such, I feel this provides *tremendous* value.
>
> I do recognize that the possibility exists for fragmentation.  I don't 
> think I have *anywhere* near enough experience to give a valuable 
> analysis in this regard, and as such leave it to those folks who do.
>
> Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>
>> My *personal* opinion is that if I can develop XSLT 2.0 applications 
>> with even the current XSLT 2.0 processors and IDEs for them, I'd 
>> never use EXSLT for XSLT 1.0 unless I'm paid to do this.
>>
>> Even after a group of people makes a big effort and produces a 
>> library that make XSLT 1.0 + EXSLT very *slightly* resemble XSLT 2.0.
>>
>> On the other side, I will readily use valuable EXSLT extensions for 
>> XSLT 2.0 such as the
>>
>>   xxx:memo-function attribute
>>
>> and the
>>
>>   xxx:compiled-stylesheet element.
>>
>> Another group of useful extensions to XSLT 2.0 would be a module of 
>> functions that implement retrospectiveness (although FXSL already 
>> provides such functions).
>>
>> I should very definitely express the respect I have towards Uche 
>> Ogbuji and his XSLT 1.0 + EXSLT related activities. At the same time, 
>> I can only accept as a personal opinion that is not absolutely true, 
>> Uche's statements about XSLT 2.0 ("painful excess") and XPath 2.0 
>> ("is a mess").
>>
>> To be objective we need to hear the opinion of people that are in the 
>> heart of XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 design, such as Michael Kay.
>>
>> I strongly believe that EXSLT is and should be the result of 
>> collective effort, not based just on single opinions and believes.
>>
>>  
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> exslt mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.exslt.org/list
>
>