Re: Re: Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List
"M. David Peterson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xslt.extensions |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dimitre, two words (and four points of punctuation): YOU ROCK!!!! Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >>Let's get to a clean separation >>point where we can maintain two sets of modules, each of which closely >>fits the respective version of XSLT. >> >> > >Glad to hear this! I will be very much interested in the extensions to XSLT >2.0. > > > >>In summary, I don't see why the XSLT1 camp has to religiously convert >>the XSLT2 camp, or vice versa. >> >> >-------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Glad to hear this -- let's forget the unsubstantiated statements about XSLT >2.0/XPath 2.0 from the previous posts and look towards the future. > > >Cheers, >Dimitre Novatchev > >"Uche Ogbuji" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... > > >>Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >> >> >>>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"). >>> >>> >>> >>Of course that's personal opinion. So is yours and so would be Mike's >>or Jeni's. That's not really the point. >> >> >> >> >>>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. >>> >>> >>> >>That almost certainly won't sway me any more than I expect my opinion to >>sway Mike or you. Again, I don't find much use in this line of pursuit. >> >> >> >>>I strongly believe that EXSLT is and should be the result of collective >>>effort, not based just on single opinions and believes. >>> >>> >>> >>Actually we *do* have a collective effort going to cement EXSLT 1.0. >>Like it or not, I'm far from acting alone. Furthermore, you can read in >>this very forum (and elsewhere) that others agree with me that a set of >>extensions for XSLT 1.0 is still valuable, so here we are doing just >>that. I'm sorry if it puts you off. >> >>But I also don't see that it should be a problem for you. The whole >>point of the current burst of activity here is to settle on a >>(reasonably) final set of extensions for XSLT 1.0. Once we have that >>the decks are a bit more clear, and we should be able to support the >>XSLT1 camp *and* the XSLT2 camp without complete chaos as a result. >>EXSLT did start as a set of extensions for XSLT 1.0, and I would think >>there is no harm even to XSLT2 afficionados if we bring that effort to a >>clear milestone (rather than the vague sort of trailing-off we currently >>have). A set of extensions for XSLT2, as you indicate would be a very >>different beast. Surely you don't need most of the current EXSLT "0.9" >>extension modules cluttering up the XSLT2 space with stuff that already >>had functional equivalents in XSLT2. Let's get to a clean separation >>point where we can maintain two sets of modules, each of which closely >>fits the respective version of XSLT. >> >>In summary, I don't see why the XSLT1 camp has to religiously convert >>the XSLT2 camp, or vice versa. The idea here is to provide options for >>both. >> >> >>-- >>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 > > > >