Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) From: "Kurt Cagle" <cagle@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:39:07 -0800 |
Daniel, If you didn't include explicit type conversions (which are a pain to deal with anyway -- I spend entirely too much time with Saxon 7.3 debugging type conversion code in XSLT2) do you think you could create something that is functionally compliant? I was rather hoping to see a version of libxslt for XSLT2/XPath2 soon. -- Kurt Cagle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Veillard" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:47:23PM +0100, Tobias Reif wrote: > > Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > The dependancy on W3C XML Schemas makes it very very unlikely for me. > > 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 ? > > > > 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. > > > > As as side > > > effect I can't implement specifications depending on it too. > > Would Relax NG in the place of WXS solve your problems? > > Of course not: Relax NG does not allow to identify type, at > best it delegates recognition of "simple types" to other > specifications like the datatype part of XML Schemas (which is fine > BTW). Relax NG is dedicated to validation, not to map types to > part of an XML subtree. > > > > Life is short ... I don't want to bury month and months of > > > mine into trying to implement (and support !) a spec which is > > > just too unclear to be understood reliably. > > Did you express all this as feedback to the editor, authors, and working > > group? > > 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 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 :-) > 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. > > Daniel > > -- > Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ > veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ > http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Daniel Veillard | Thread | Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Daniel Veillard |
RE: [xsl] Nesting <xsl:value-of> ta, Roger Glover | Date | Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Tobias Reif |
Month |