Re: [xsl] minified json output

["Rushforth, Peter peter.rushforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I had to do some work on version 1 recently and I was surprised at how
tolerable the whole experience was. Ok I didn't have to do any aggressive
string handling or anything that required a > recursive template  but it
brought home how well designed the initial incarnation of the language was.

No real argument with that, but I recall grouping was a major pain point.

Ibm sure there were other benefits for the upgrade ( xpath expressions,
functions ) too, but yes, on the whole what was good then still is.

But now itbs just a pain that there are situations where I canbt apply
code developed for one context (servlet, web application) in another
(database).

So yeah, I still wish the rest of the world would move a little forward wrt
xslt.

Cheers,
Peter


From: Ihe Onwuka ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: January 29, 2015 11:57
To: xsl-list
Subject: Re: [xsl] minified json output


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Rushforth, Peter
peter.rushforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:peter.rushforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxx
rytech.com>> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#xml-to-json-stylesheet
json support could be the motivation for us to upgrade to v 3 techniques.


Now that I am acquainted with JSONiq it wouldn't be enough to tempt me.  At
one point I thought streaming would but I keep finding workarounds.

I wish the rest of the world would get off version 1.


I had to do some work on version 1 recently and I was surprised at how
tolerable the whole experience was. Ok I didn't have to do any aggressive
string handling or anything that required a recursive template  but it brought
home how well designed the initial incarnation of the language was.
XSL-List info and archive<http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list>
EasyUnsubscribe<-list/1072585> (by email<>)