Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List

http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/2006/02/on_procedural_v_1.html

Frans Englich wrote:

> 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
>