Re: [xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0 in C++
Subject: Re: [xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0 in C++|
From: Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:03:32 +1030
Andrew Welch wrote:
>> various FP languages and some with a C/C++ language base. On the other
>> hand, XSL-T 2.0 is as good as still-born (to quote a blog by
>> Harold) given that there are few if any C++ based XSL-T processors that
>> approach anywhere near the Gold Standard XSL-T 2.0 processor that is
>> for Java (and its .Net translation).
> Can you link to that quote, because I can find where he's said that in
> relation to the lack of a processor written in C++?
He didn't say it specifically in relation to C++. But he said XSLT 2 and
XPath 2 were still-born:
Quoted from there:
Perhaps the time has come to say that the W3C has outlived its
usefulness. Really, has there been any important W3C spec in this
millennium that's worth the paper it isn't printed on? The W3C almost
killed HTML, and browser vendors have effectively abandoned it. Between
schemas and XML 1.0 5th edition, they same intent on doing the same
thing to XML. And don't get me started on the huge amount of effort and
brain power being wasted on counting semantic angels on top of a
URI-named pin. XSLT 2 and XPath 2 were still-born, and the much more
pragmatic XSLT 1.1 was killed. Maybe XQuery, but even that is far more
complex and less powerful than it should be due to an excessive number
of use cases and a poorly designed schema type system. I think we might
all be better off if the W3C had declared victory and closed up shop in
And then again about 26 tweets down (click on More to see)
# @jamesgmoss Very little uptake. Very few products (basically 1). No
browser support. Just hasn't caught on. Only Dr. Kay invested in it.
:-( 3:11 PM Nov 17th from web in reply to jamesgmoss
I don't know about IBM but Intel's XSLT 2.0 is not a product-at-large
(i.e. standalone). I understand it is now embedded/repurposed into a
larger product .. not much help for Apache HTTP server users .. does one
really have to use a Java container such as Tomcat, Jetty or WebSphere
to use Saxon for Java or perhaps .Net version in an MS environment.
>> - XML processing libraries for C/C++ are disparate; where is XOM for
>> - There are no compelling reasons for business investment in alternative
>> XSL-T implementations
> IBM and Intel now have XSLT 2.0 processors, so they must have had a
> compelling reason.
> XOM is written by Elliotte Rusty Harold, so the above quote would be
> strange if it were correct.
I'm saying that XOM for Java is goodness but there's no much in the
similar quality libraries for C/C++.
Maybe the world has moved on. In post C++ camps, programming languages
like D by Walter Bright (www.digitalmars.com) and Go from Google
(www.golang.org) where GC is built in, there is little serious interest
in XML let alone XSLT.
Perhaps the world has also moved on from Apache HTTP server and PHP? Is
that what you are saying?
Don't get me wrong, I feel great affection for XSLT 2. Just that if you
run with the world's most popular HTTP server there are no real XSLT 2
options for you.
Aside, I don't have the link handy but perhaps 2 months ago Dr. Kay said
on his twitter micro-blog in relation to XSLT implementations something
like "where are all the C++ masochists?"
>> - I'm clueless; please add your input
> Could it just be that the world has moved on from C++?