Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:28:58 -0700 |
> FWIW, practically every case I see a user using XSLT with *:script, it is > because what they really wanted was a way to do XPath from their favorite > language, and they thought XSLT was the only way to programatically > manipulate node-sets accessed via XPath. I do agree with Joshua's sentiment. The essence of what is billed as XSLT 1.1 could pretty much be your favorite programming language plus DOM and an XPath library. If all the Java users want a Java unification for tree transforms, why don't they just do so in Java? Why hack at XSLT? I know that I often just go straight to 4XPath when it makes sense, and use XSLT when it makes sense. I think it's a bad idea to try to make XSLT all things to all people, which I wouldn't have particularly thought of as a motivation for xsl:script until Scott Boag's implication in that direction. "They are really meant to be a stop-gap measure until the language fullfills 99% of what people need to do... which may be a while yet." Pretty scary thought. I also think a lot of extension-mongering would be minimized if there were a run-time evaluate function (the famous saxon:evaluate). I do understand soem of the WG's original opposition to this, but I think a lot of things in XSLT 1.0 and even more in 1.1 undermine this opposition. I also like the idea expressed here of implementing extension functions in XSLT. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Joshua Allen | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, James Clark | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, James Clark |
Month |