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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequen, vasu chakkera | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequen, Florent Georges |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequen, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.1: Nestable sequen, Florent Georges |
Month |