Subject: xslt2 comments (was: [xsl] N : M transformation) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:06:52 GMT |
> First until XSLT-2.0 is complete one should not "discard" it, maybe > providing more feedback is needed That's one reason I moan about it on this list. the archives of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/ will show that I've made many comments on the drafts, posting there I try to send constructive comments, whereas on xsl-list it's more a matter of warning people that changes are in the pipeline and that they should look at the draft specs and comment if they don't meet expectations/requirements, so I don't feel the need to be so constructive:-) > I understand that Michael want to focus > on XSLT-2 development. Maybe someone can simply write the patch needed > to get Saxon to implement exslt:document, based on the existing Saxon > extension (which I implemented too) this should not be too hard. Having > EXSLT widely deployed will give the XSL group the time to finish XSLT-2 > and XPath-2. One of the original aims of exslt was a user-requirements led experiment to implement extensions that could be offered as possible things to consider in a future recommendation. Sadly Xpath2/XSLT2 have largely ignored XSLT2 users altogether and gone for a language not fundamentaly based on XML document markup but on a typed annotated tree format most naturally derived from some database. There is no doubt a need for such a language, I don't see the need (except to pander to XML marketing hype) to call that language Xpath. Of course this isn't the first time that people have been suggesting standardising extensions while the WG gets on with finishing a spec. http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199911/msg00178.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: vendor neutral XSL extension namespace ? From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:35:18 GMT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming xslt is about to become a recommendation... XSLT is hopefully about to become stable for a while there will I suppose be a gap before the next W3C recommended version 1.x or 2 or whatever. However there are some useful extensions being implemented, xt's document element to allow multiple output files, the result tree to node set conversions, Saxon's grouping constructs,... Would it be possible for XSL implementors to agree on a common extension namespace for some of these (that is explicitly an _experimental_ extension and does not imply later acceptance by W3C) It is unfortunate if stylesheets that could work unchanged on different implementations fail to do so just because of namespace differences in otherwise identical extensions. If such an agreement could be made it would be useful I think. (Perhaps the kind folks at Mulberry could offer a namespace uri related to the archives for this list?) David David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] N : M transformation, Tobias Reif | Thread | Re: [xsl] N : M transformation, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] XPath question, David Carlisle | Date | RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Michael Kay |
Month |