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

Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
From: S Woodside <sbwoodside@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:59:43 -0500

On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 06:13 AM, Michael Kay wrote:

I'm still of the opinion that the query crowd should take
their schema and go find another sandpit to play in, taking
the elegant advances of XSLT/XPATH2 as an advance on prior
art and available to use as needed for their own purposes.

Actually, XQuery is going to have two levels of conformance as well. There are people on the XQuery side of the fence who aren't interested in schemas either. And we wouldn't be doing schema support in XSLT unless there were major vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM who claim that their users are clamouring for it.

The central point that started this whole debate and now seems to be lost, is that WXS has problems. XMLs roots are in simplifying markup, allowing extensibility, future proofing -- all the good stuff that Simon St. Laurent's always talking about. Now with WXS we have this schema language that's so complicated that even the advanced folks say unabashedly that they don't understand it. I don't understand it, so I use RNG. XQuery decided to align with WXS -- that's collateral damage from WXS. Folks here are saying they want XSLT2 to stay free of the WXS fallout, that seems reasonable.

The big vendors may benefit from selling expensive consultants and tools, and they may benefit from devising customized solution systems that modularize the complexity. In the long run, however, I think more people win if the technology is designed such that it can be fully understood by the individuals who use it.



XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread