Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Re: ?XSLT Repository? From: "cutlass" <cutlass@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:56:48 +0100 |
hello all, > > > > Of these three www.vbxml.com and xsltsl.sourceforge.net contain 100% pure XSLT > > solutions. it is clearly stated, in EXSLT, where there is a particular implementation in EXSLT; that is EXSLT,XSLT, M$, or FOURTHOUGHT parser, the focus of the EXSLT effort is two-fold; a) generating function definitions through EXSLT meta data format, seperate from implementation. b) generating implementations that adhere to functions definition ( at least we try, hehe ). in no way is EXSLT promoting less then 100% compatible solutions within XSLT, one of the main aspects of EXSLT is if someone wants to create a particular implementation, say in javascript, and use EXSLT syntax within their code, they are making more portable code, in addition, implementators (Fourthought python xslt parser,jd.xslt XSLT processor, LibXSLT for gnome parser, SAXON parser all implement some EXSLT functions and hopefully will go the whole hog...someday ) are building in these functions to make things portable across parsers. > > All three are limited and incomplete, are created by small groups of people and > > therefore much more needs to be accomplished. i know that the EXLST effort initially involved a fairly diverse group within XSLT community, but i think that all specs suffer from the bias of their creators ? In addition, now that standard bodies such as OASIS and W3 are above the waterline and much more accessible to the dev community at large we tend to expect to standardize everything or at least spark off another process to create a new specification, or in this case a new library; a quick look at the W3 home page confirms this. The W3 is suffering from the success of xml core spec, vastly divergent groups can work away on specs, knowing that they will be able to integrate with other efforts, this is good, but when a new web developer is presented with XML,XSLT,RELAXNG,RDF,SOAP,SVG to develop with frankly they get a little lost, which is the primary reasoning for developing libraries of functions for immediate use. > > I think that these examples show why a W3C-developed Standard XSLT Template Library > > would be an extremely valuable and useful (self-implementing) specification. a pure XSLT library is more tactical in scope, its something that is immediately useful with respect to creating XSLT, but i don't think its an OASIS or W3 effort, its a project at sourceforge probably, with the dev community at large adding to it. Though (as the people from all these efforts full well now ), it tends to be a small group that actually submit implementations, not to mention coordinating engineering stds, etc. before embarking on creating a library, i for one would like to see some things added/edited/deleted to XSLT 2.0, based on the learning of these efforts. btw it seems to be time again to start up discussion of XSLT 2.0 with respect to this thread ( everyone back from vacation .... ), can anyone from W3 comment on progress re XSLT 2.0, and also resend draft req again, i cant seem to find it, in the lovely new XSLT generated W3 page. cheers, jim fuller XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Re: Re: ?XSLT Repository?, Tim Watts | Thread | [xsl] XSLT 2.0 reg doc, cutlass |
Re: [xsl] node extraction from on t, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] : Problems with Javascrip, Michael Beddow |
Month |