Subject: Re: [xsl] the future of xslt From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:48:43 +0200 |
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "James" == James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > James> I think if we had XSLT 2.0 in the browser then we would > James> have XQuery for nearly free. saxon doesn't implement 2 different processors for its XSLT 2.0 and XQuery implementations ... I will leave details to MKay in this paper http://www.idealliance.org/proceedings/xtech05/papers/02-03-01/ on the differences of XSLT 2.0 and XQuery as an aside, eXist XMLDB people (in the form of a Google Summer of Code project) is now embarking on an XSLT 2.0 implementationby effectively putting an abstraction over its XQuery implementation. I am not saying its not difficult, but if one goes through the trouble of implementing XSLT 2.0 for the browser, you are going some way to implementing XQuery as well, though I agree with Liam assertions about XQuery 'sweet spot' being on the server side. cheers, Jim
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] the future of xslt, Colin Paul Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] the future of xslt, Tony Graham |
Re: [xsl] the future of xslt, Liam Quin | Date | Re: [xsl] the future of xslt, Tony Graham |
Month |