Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequences or sequence references?

["Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

>  I understand your concerns about the adoption of new features in
> XSLT 2.1, but I don't think this is desperate.  I think the best
> we can do is imlplementing the extensions we need as individual
> projects.  The availability of existing implementations could help
> discussions about an hypothetical EXSLT2.  And I feel that EXSLT2
> is the best way to have something accepted by the WG.

So, let's just start EXSLT2 then!

Is there someone willing to spare a little free time for setting up a
website (will it be necessary to change the domain name from exslt.org
to something else? Also, will it be necessary to use a new mailing
list or could the existing mailing list be used for EXSLT2?)?

As soon as there is an established way to communicate and publish, I
believe we will soon have the agreed specifications of a few most
important functions.

Cheers,
Dimitre


On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:05 AM, Michael Kay wrote:
>
>> > (a) nested sequences
>
>> As I am tired of asking for (a) and learning from all prior
>> experience, I absolutely don't have any illusions these will be
>> part even of XSLT 4.
>
>> Therefore, Isn't it high time for *EXSLT 2*?
>
>  I think so (for some time now.)  Unfortunately, the EXSLT
> community is not so responsive for now (XProc is not so innocent
> here :-p.)  Actually I developed a few extensions and I was
> naturally tempted to include the string "exslt2" somewhere in the
> namespace URI used.
>
>  I understand your concerns about the adoption of new features in
> XSLT 2.1, but I don't think this is desperate.  I think the best
> we can do is imlplementing the extensions we need as individual
> projects.  The availability of existing implementations could help
> discussions about an hypothetical EXSLT2.  And I feel that EXSLT2
> is the best way to have something accepted by the WG.
>
>> To the list of *nested sequences* and *references* I would also
>> add *memoisation*.
>
>> [...]
>
>> Florent has written his Java implementation and it is a matter
>> of days for a C# implementation of something similar ...  :( to
>> surface out...
>
>  Just to be sure, my implementation is for nested sequences, not
> memoisation.
>
>> By not standardizing we will very soon find ourselves with a
>> number of incompatible definitions of such functions and will
>> have to face all the resulting portability issues.
>
>  I agree.  But we can maybe try to have common XSLT APIs for
> similar extensions (I never use an extension without defining its
> own XSLT module that exposes a public API through XPath functions,
> hiding the extension machinery mecanism.)
>
>  If those extensions are useful and used, new use cases will show
> up, and specifications will refine...  And that mecanism is the
> best advantage for adoption by a body like W3C.
>
>> Let's be realistic and pragmatic and not wait in the next ten
>> years for a committee blessing. We have EXSLT and EXSLT has
>> worked well in the past and served real needs.
>
>  Sure.  But the past showed also that they weren't opposed, by
> complementary.  EXSLT helped to open new directions, to show some
> real-world implementations of new features, and maybe more
> important yet which one users were requesting for.  I am convinced
> that something like EXSLT does facilitate adoption by the WG.
>
>> I appeal to the EXSLT community to respond and provide the
>> definitions of the above three features -- in the name of the
>> ideas this movement (I still believe) stands for.
>
>  I agree.  Even if I would have said the *XSLT 2.0* community...
>
>  Regards,
>
> --
> Florent Georges
> http://www.fgeorges.org/
>
>



-- 
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play