Re: [xsl] Are there any free, fully-compliant XSLT/XPath 3.0 processors?

[davep <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27/01/13 13:03, Michael Kay wrote:
> On 27/01/2013 08:23, davep wrote:
> > IMHO 3.0 has rolled 180 degrees from the one man xslt 1.0 effort and 
> > is now the
> > proverbial horse designed by committee.
> I think there are two questions here: is it maintaining design 
> integrity, and are the new features in touch with real user requirements?
>
> On design integrity, I think we're doing a reasonably good job. There 
> are constraints imposed by the XML/XPath syntax split, and of course 
> by backwards compatibility, but I don't think we're producing 
> something that looks as if different parts were designed by different 
> people. As for requirements, I would fully accept that we're perhaps 
> over-influenced by the requirements of the top end of the market; in 
> the battle between rich functionality and simplicity, rich 
> functionality always seems to win. As Liam has been arguing, there are 
> probably more people who would like to see XPath smaller rather than 
> bigger, but the people who want it bigger tend to shout louder, and to 
> win the day.
>
> If you have specific criticisms of the XSLT 3.0 effort, I'd love to 
> hear them.

My prime one is complexity MIke?
<guesses> Few users will get into more than 1/3 of xpath 3.0 with any 
level of understanding,
primarily due to complexity, which I see as a negative aspect. For every 
Dimitre there
are 101 others who will stare at the spec, shrug and go back to 2.0 or 
even 1.0</guess>

It may be biggco driving it, I might suggest biggco as an xquery user?

It seems to have drifted a long way from DSSSL and XSLT 1.0 the 
transformation language.

Whether some form of subset can be of use to lesser mortals I don't know.
XT played a big part in realising the potential of XSLT. Free as in 
money helped.
Is there a subset that Saxon could release under the specs conformance 
section
that might bring that back? Possibly not.

Anyone?

regards