Re: Re: Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List
"M. David Peterson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xslt.extensions |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Oh, and little smiley too: YOU ROCK!!!! :D M. David Peterson wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > exslt mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.exslt.org/list > >