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

["vasu chakkera" <vasucv@xxxxxxxxx>]

>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
 
Sure.. This is good one, and I can start it off. We can discuss regd this.
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Dimitre Novatchev 
Date: 12/09/08 16:12:42 
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequences or sequence references? 
 
> 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/