Subject: RE: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default|
From: Pieter Reint Siegers Kort <pieter.siegers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:25:12 -0600
Thanx all, especially our two Michaels, that was good to read :-) Michael Champion wrote: > that is why we are waiting until XSLT 2.0 is actually a Recommendation before announcing any implementation plans or schedule O, do I read some kind of "we'll come up with XSLt 2.0"? :-) Michael Champion wrote: > XQuery in SQL Server is a bit of a special case... Hey, common, tell us more - what is supposed to be a "stable" subset of XQuery? My personal experience with WD-xsl was just great, I remember entering the XML world at that time, and thought MS did a great thing to bring early XSL support. I just updated my stylesheets when newer versions of MSXML came out, and never have had a real headache in doing it - mine were always small and simple ones :-) I think that after all, with all that has happened, I think that MS took a good decision in not bringing WD's in their products anymore, they show they've learnt their lessons, and I'm confident that they'll come up with both XQuery 1.0 AND XSLT 2.0 (right? :) when the Rec specs are there. Wasn' that Q1 2006, or something? Good, then we have (at least) one year to go, that's not much. We at Saxon.NET will be starting the port of Saxon real soon now. Cheers, <prs/> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Miircoles, 09 de Marzo de 2005 10:03 a.m. To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default "M. David Peterson" wrote: Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:32:48 -0700 "In fact one of the primary reasons Microsoft has held back from providing direct support for the XSLT 2.0 spec is based on the last second 'split' of the 1.0 spec into the XSL (FO) and XSLT specifications causing an incompatible processor to be propogated and a support nightmare to be invoked. " I was not at Microsoft nor involved with the XSLT WG in 1998-1999, but my understanding is similar to those who replied that the XSL-FO / XSLT split had nothing to do with MS shipping an XSLT implementation that was incompatible with the eventual Recommendation. There were some interesting points raised in the replies, and I really have no opinion about their historical accuracy or fairness. I can only speak to the *current* perception in the WebData XML team at MS about the lessons we as a company and an industry learned from this experience. The sense I get from my colleagues who were around is that it *was* a good faith effort to implement what they understood to be the draft spec, along with various improvements to make it suitable to known customer needs. I will say that my personal view at the time was that Microsoft's support for XSLT, flawed and premature though it clearly was in hindsight, was an attempt to do the Right Thing. Furthermore, it had the result of offering considerable credibility to XSLT and creating a demand for XSLT tools and experience.. I can very easily imagine a world in which XSLT shared the fate of XLink, if MS had waited for the final spec and for customer demand to emerge before supporting it in its core products. The MS position going forward is, as I understand it from my rather brief experience, NEVER AGAIN -- we will not ship support of a draft Recommendation in actual products. That is why we removed the preview implementation of XQuery from the .NET 2.0 framework, that is why we are waiting until XSLT 2.0 is actually a Recommendation before announcing any implementation plans or schedule. (XQuery in SQL Server is a bit of a special case ... in any event we're not claiming to ship a conformant implementation, just something that leverages the years of experience that have gone into XQuery and meets pressing customer needs).