Subject: Re: [xsl] second implementation of XSLT 2.0? From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:44:07 +1100 |
I'd love it if Saxon.NET could be counted as a separate implementation. My only concern is that Saxon.NET as of today does not yet implement a SA XSLT 2.0 processor. -- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the biggest mistake of all. On 11/23/05, M. David Peterson <m.david.x2x2x@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 , M. David Peterson | Thread | Re: [xsl] second implementation of , M. David Peterson |
Re: [xsl] second implementation of , M. David Peterson | Date | Re: [xsl] second implementation of , Frans Englich |
Month |