xslt2 comments (was: [xsl] N : M transformation)

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 
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

> 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.


    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?)


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:

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

Current Thread