Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)|
From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 22:48:52 +0100
Daniel Veillard wrote:
I agree that dependency on WXS is a bad aspect, but I think it won't be
required for all implementations. First news to me, how can you back-up that statement ?
Issue 125 (schema-conformance):
We need to describe a conformance level that does not require schema
Issue 125: schema-conformance
Description: We need to describe a conformance level that does not
require schema support.
Resolution: We decided that we should define a conformance level in
which schema processing was not required. The details, however, have not
been worked out.
If that's what it takes to make the spec implementable (for you and
probably others), then this should be evaluated by the WG IMHO.
I can't implement a specification I don't understand.Then there is a lot of room for improvement regarding the spec.
Well that would probably lead to a complete revamp of
of the structure part.
I see; you didn't elaborate on the details so I couldn't know.
Would Relax NG in the place of WXS solve your problems? Of course not: Relax NG does not allow to identify type
My personal POV is:
I think Michael and Henry know me well enough, and that I propagated
that back to them. It's also clear that I tried an implementation within
libxml2 but it became quickly too painful that I focused on other targets.
I like XSLT, and I see room for improvement in XSLT 1.0 (regexen,
multiple output files, etc).
So I'd be very happy to see XSLT evolve in a direction which addresses
some of these areas (as the current draft of 2.0 does in some of the
perhaps less controversial parts).
But all that has no value if it won't be widely implemented, which can
only happen if (at leat some of the) implementers (of the currently
popular processors) can implement it, and see value in doing so.
Neither do I, and that's what worries me. I think the XSLT 2.0 spec
might have to be changed in substantial ways. I mean, if you as
maintainer of libxml/libxslt/xsltproc say
"I can't implement a specification I don't understand."
then that means that other implementers probably have rightful concerns
about the current draft as well.
I think the spec can only improve if every implementer feeds back any
problems he sees, especially if they keep him from implementing the spec. I don't think I'm the only one :-)
BTW, to illustrate why I enjoy some parts of XSLT 2.0:
There is also a threshold of how much feedback seems needed to
clear up points of a spec. In most case a focused feedback makes
sense (and I know that, I have been involved in W3C working group
activities first as staff and then as external contributor since 98)
and is rightly appreciated. But the Primer can't replace an authoritative
spec where when you have a question reading it provide the answer,
that is very hard for most of XML Schemas Structure part.
Anyway I didn't want to get into this rathole, I'm just stating
why I think at this point that I won't be able to implement XSLT-2.0
nor XPath-2.0 anytime soon.
This (unfinished, buggy, not-yet-cleaned up) transformation marks up XML
code listings (eg for syntax highlighting)
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list