Re: [xsl] XSLT compiler and syntax extensions

[COUTHURES Alain <alain.couthures@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Having manually translated a complex XSLT 2.0 stylesheet into XSLT 1.0, 
my point of view is that the main difficulty is concerning XPath 2.0. 
Complex XPath 2.0 expressions require extra XSLT 1.0 instructions and 
frequent use of node-set() function to allow to re-transform results. 
Have a look at 
http://www.svgopen.org/2010/papers/14-Dynamic_SVG_graphs_for_XForms/#d4e184

XSLTForms has its own XPath 1.0 parser written in XSLT 1.0. It is 
clearly its most complex part and surely XSLT 2.0/XPath 2.0 would have 
helped to simplify it.

-Alain

Le 18/11/2010 15:05, Emmanuel Bigui a icrit :
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Michael Kay<mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > Easy really.
> If the compiler needs to be able to compile itself then basically it
> amounts to rewriting Saxon in XSLT: very easy, probably, yes (I wonder
> why it has not yet been done...?)
>
> But what exactly is the need? Who is the target audience?
>
> A more developer-friendly XSLT 1.0 would be interesting and would not
> need to be 100% 2.0 conformant; for instance, 2.0-grouping and getting
> rid of the dreaded "result tree fragments" would be a nice step
> forward. But then of course it would amount to create yet another XSLT
> version (maybe close to 1.1 ...?) and would only add to the confusion.
>
> And who is the target audience?
>
> If we're only talking about browsers, then the target audience is XSLT
> developers that can't or won't write Javascript (since JS support in
> modern browsers is nothing short of excellent). Or, the target
> audience is people dealing with tasks that ** need to be done in a
> browser ** and for which:
> 1) XSLT would be the best tool
> 2) XSLT 1.0 is clumsy/impossible to use
>
> What are those tasks and who are those people (and how many of them
> are they ;-)?
>
> Besides browsers, what other environments have good XSLT 1.0 support
> and zero XSLT 2.0 support?
>
> Regards,
> EB