Subject: Re: [xsl] second implementation of XSLT 2.0? From: "M. David Peterson" <m.david.x2x2x@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:45:50 -0700 |
Hey Wendell, I think we can safely hedge our bets that with Gestalt and Altova we should be covered. The question I have (and I think I know the answer which is "no, they are the same general source code base so they only count as one) is whether or not Saxon.NET can be considered a separate implementation. Does anyone know what qualifies as a separate implementation and what does not? Either way, I think we're safe with Gestalt and Altova but if Saxon.NET provides backup (and potentially Xalan if the rumors prove to be true) then that makes things all the better :) On 11/22/05, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 04:03 PM 11/22/2005, Bob DuCharme wrote: > >Before a W3C Candidate Recommendation advances to Proposed > >Recommendation status, "the Working Group should be able to demonstrate > >two interoperable implementations of each feature."[1] So far, we've got > >Saxon for 2.0, but what else? > > I'm glad Bob has posted this since I'm interested in the very same question. > > I've been getting more experience with the 2.0 versions (using Saxon) > and finding to my considerable gratification that it goes very > smoothly. There really isn't much you need to "unlearn" from 1.0 > (basically, the way a few functions work), which is an excellent > thing: it means that 1.0 continues to be useful, as a stepping stone > to the more powerful language if nothing else. 2.0 adds a lot, but > without the cumbersome schema-dependencies we were afraid of (the > committee got that right), and without taking anything away that I can see. > > And 2.0 *is* more powerful. Features I've had reason to be glad about: > > * Grouping: easier and more fun even for those of us who've > internalized the 1.0 tricks > * Transparent processing of results (wow!) > * User-authored functions (and how!) > * More powerful XPath (for example, with key use=".//*/local-name()" > you can return a set of elements that contain elements with a given > name -- nifty) > > ... and there are other nice features too (tunnel parameters, anyone?) > > All this makes Bob's question very relevant at this stage: as a fan > of XSLT 1.0, I think its fate may be tied to 2.0, so I'd like 2.0 to > succeed, and not just for its own sake. > > But as Bob mentions, two interoperable implementations of each > feature are needed for the spec to be eligible for Rec status. > > It would be nice to know who is working on this, so we can cheer them on. > > Cheers, > Wendell > > > > ====================================================================== > Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com > 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 > Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 > Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML > ====================================================================== > > -- <M:D/> M. David Peterson http://www.xsltblog.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] second implementation of , Wendell Piez | Thread | Re: [xsl] second implementation of , Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] second implementation of , Wendell Piez | Date | Re: [xsl] second implementation of , Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |