Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List
Frans Englich <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xslt.extensions |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 07:44, 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? I've read this thread with the counter arguments to this comment, and I nevertheless still agree with it: I can't justify to attempt to spec something that already has carefully been done. What is suggested is a controversial idea. W3C and pretty much everyone else has a hard time pushing out good specs -- which we all love to complain about. In this case it's not a hard-to-spot problem, but we are consciously steering at it: duplicating content with spec fragmentation as result. Who are supposed to implement and use it? The 2.0 specifications has test suites, been stable for about a year, are practically recommendations, and are implemented or being implemented by Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Saxonica, Altova, possibly others(and me for KDE). And one can find courses and plenty of books on XSL-T 2.0. How would it be easier to acquire XSL-T 2.0-like features from something that hasn't yet been written(nor implemented, nor can be verified for conformance), than XSL-T 2.0? I agree that implementing cherry picked pieces is a lot less than XSL-T 2.0 Basic. But to go from that to starting an alternative universe is drastic. The gain is less work. The drawbacks are 1) time spent on rewriting a spec which instead could be invested in moving forward; 2) the features in XSL-T 2.0 are missed; 3) The conventional IT industry looks pass oneself(the whole impact of W3C); 4) one has essentially closed the door to the 2.0 community; and 4) spec fragmentation. I gladly avoid all that and am on the safe side, instead of burning my bridges by not jumping the 2.0 wagon. Extra work ends, burned bridges stays for ever. Here's my advice: start extending your engines to support XSL-T 2.0. I bet doing that is close to the labour required for duplicating the XSL-T spec to an acceptable quality. Cheers, Frans _______________________________________________ exslt mailing list [email protected] http://www.exslt.org/list