Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequences or sequence references?

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequences or sequence references?
From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:25:27 -0800
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:28 AM, vasu chakkera <vasucv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Is there someone willing to spare a little free time for setting up a
>>Website (will it be necessary to change the domain name from exslt.org to
> something else
>
> Sure.. This is good one, and I can start it off. We can discuss regd this.

Probably it will be a good idea to ask the owner of the exslt.org
domain if they would allow it to be used for EXSLT2 too.

Dimitre

>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Dimitre Novatchev
> Date: 12/09/08 16:12:42
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequences or sequence references?
>
>> I understand your concerns about the adoption of new features in
>> XSLT 2.1, but I don't think this is desperate. I think the best
>> we can do is imlplementing the extensions we need as individual
>> projects. The availability of existing implementations could help
>> discussions about an hypothetical EXSLT2. And I feel that EXSLT2
>> is the best way to have something accepted by the WG.
>
> So, let's just start EXSLT2 then!
>
> Is there someone willing to spare a little free time for setting up a
> Website (will it be necessary to change the domain name from exslt.org
> To something else? Also, will it be necessary to use a new mailing
> List or could the existing mailing list be used for EXSLT2?)?
>
> As soon as there is an established way to communicate and publish, I
> Believe we will soon have the agreed specifications of a few most
> Important functions.
>
> Cheers,
> Dimitre
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:05 AM, Michael Kay wrote:
>>
>>> > (a) nested sequences
>>
>>> As I am tired of asking for (a) and learning from all prior
>>> experience, I absolutely don't have any illusions these will be
>>> part even of XSLT 4.
>>
>>> Therefore, Isn't it high time for *EXSLT 2*?
>>
>> I think so (for some time now.) Unfortunately, the EXSLT
>> community is not so responsive for now (XProc is not so innocent
>> here :-p.) Actually I developed a few extensions and I was
>> naturally tempted to include the string "exslt2" somewhere in the
>> namespace URI used.
>>
>> I understand your concerns about the adoption of new features in
>> XSLT 2.1, but I don't think this is desperate. I think the best
>> we can do is imlplementing the extensions we need as individual
>> projects. The availability of existing implementations could help
>> discussions about an hypothetical EXSLT2. And I feel that EXSLT2
>> is the best way to have something accepted by the WG.
>>
>>> To the list of *nested sequences* and *references* I would also
>>> add *memoisation*.
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> Florent has written his Java implementation and it is a matter
>>> of days for a C# implementation of something similar ... :( to
>>> surface out...
>>
>> Just to be sure, my implementation is for nested sequences, not
>> memoisation.
>>
>>> By not standardizing we will very soon find ourselves with a
>>> number of incompatible definitions of such functions and will
>>> have to face all the resulting portability issues.
>>
>> I agree. But we can maybe try to have common XSLT APIs for
>> similar extensions (I never use an extension without defining its
>> own XSLT module that exposes a public API through XPath functions,
>> hiding the extension machinery mecanism.)
>>
>> If those extensions are useful and used, new use cases will show
>> up, and specifications will refine... And that mecanism is the
>> best advantage for adoption by a body like W3C.
>>
>>> Let's be realistic and pragmatic and not wait in the next ten
>>> years for a committee blessing. We have EXSLT and EXSLT has
>>> worked well in the past and served real needs.
>>
>> Sure. But the past showed also that they weren't opposed, by
>> complementary. EXSLT helped to open new directions, to show some
>> real-world implementations of new features, and maybe more
>> important yet which one users were requesting for. I am convinced
>> that something like EXSLT does facilitate adoption by the WG.
>>
>>> I appeal to the EXSLT community to respond and provide the
>>> definitions of the above three features -- in the name of the
>>> ideas this movement (I still believe) stands for.
>>
>> I agree. Even if I would have said the *XSLT 2.0* community...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Florent Georges
>> http://www.fgeorges.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev
> ---------------------------------------
> Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
> ---------------------------------------
> To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
> -------------------------------------
> Never fight an inanimate object
> -------------------------------------
> You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
> you're doing is work or play
>
>



-- 
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play

Current Thread