Re: Re: Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List

Hey Sylvain,

Regarding the language differences between Java/C# and Python or other 
dynamic languages, I hadn't put two and two together until just now.  
When you take this into consideration, it makes quite a bit more sense 
as to why folks who work in a more dynamic language environment find 
some of the XSLT 2.0 features less significant than those of us who work 
in more rigid (in regards to types)  environments such as Java and C#.

Thanks for that extra bit of understanding.

Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> My opinion is just the one of an average user. EXSLT is the only way 
> for me to bring a couple of features I miss when I use XSLT 1.0
>
> At first I was thrilled by XSLT 2 (even more after reading Jeni's book 
> on it) but then I did realise that the XSLT implementation I use 
> (4suite) does not offer XSLT 2 support and as Uche suggests will never 
> do.
>
> I am entirely cool with that because I also realised that I could do 
> the same business with XSLT 1.0/EXSLT and a toolkit such as Amara. 
> Guess what, I did also realise that it was a better combination 
> because XSLT should not meant to carry all the logic XSLT 2 tries to 
> bring.
>
> It was the time I was workig with C# and .NET for my job and Python + 
> Amara for my personal projects. Well, I would welcome more XSLT 2 in 
> an environment such as J2EE or .NET because programming languages such 
> as Java or C# do not have the same flexibility as Python, Perl or 
> Ruby. To me it looks like XSLT 2 is more an attempt at fixing the lack 
> of flexibility of the former. (Note that I do not mean to say C# or 
> Java are weak or bad languages but I suspect their static nature is 
> the root of their lack of flexibility in our context).
>
> XSLT is templating language and should stick to that. XSLT 2 should 
> have been given a different name because it aims at much much 
> different target.
>
> Note that If I wanted to use XSLT 2 with Python, I would try 
> IronPython and Saxon.NET from M. David. However I still haven't really 
> reached a point where It was better design to put that much logic 
> inside my stylesheet anyway.
>
> My 2 cents...
>
> - Sylvain
>
> Dimitre Novatchev a écrit :
>
>>> I can definitely see your side of things and agree, comments from 
>>> Dr. Kay would bring GREAT value to this conversation.
>>
>>
>> Another GREAT specialist in the field is certainly Jeni Tennison -- 
>> she played a more important role for EXSLT than anyone else. She is 
>> also on the XSLT 2.0 WG.
>>
>>> From both yours and my standpoint, we have the tools we both want 
>>> and need in regards to Saxon/Saxon.NET.
>>
>>
>> So, this shows that there is definitely a group of XSLT users, for 
>> whom EXSLT for XSLT 2.0 will be useful, but who do not need and do 
>> not intend to use EXSLT for XSLT 1.0.
>>
>> We must be well aware of this fact. This was not the situation when 
>> the EXSLT (as we know today) was being conceived.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dimitre Novatchev
>>
>> "M. David Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> exslt mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.exslt.org/list
>
>