Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)

Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
From: "Kurt Cagle" <cagle@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:05:11 -0800

Never mind. You answered the question I didn't state very well. I've brought
up the too tight coupling between XPath2 and XSD, and while I understand
that there are a lot of PSVI people that want to have that tight coupling,
when you don't want it (which I suspect will be most of the time) it ends up
adding a lot of complexity with little return. Oh well.

-- Kurt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Veillard" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)

> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 01:39:07PM -0800, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > If you didn't include explicit type conversions (which are a pain to
> > with anyway -- I spend entirely too much time with Saxon 7.3 debugging
> > conversion code in XSLT2) do you think you could create something that
> > functionally compliant? I was rather hoping to see a version of libxslt
> > XSLT2/XPath2 soon.
>    I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
> The problem is that starting an implementation of a spec knowing you
> don't have the tools to implement 100% of it is like jumping from a cliff
> not knowing the depth of the water below :-\
> Honnestly don't hold your breath for XSLT2/XPath2 support in
> this sounds a large effort also with big prerequisites.
> Daniel
> --
> Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network
> veillard@xxxxxxxxxx  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit
> | Rpmfind RPM search engine
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread