Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:14:35 -0700
> Peter Flynn <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I suspect it's a done deal and therefore too late. It's an unfortunate
> > side-effect of using the corporate resources of W3C members to fund and
> > speed the generation and adoption of new specs (rather than letting
> > them evolve alongside implementations a la RFC) which we just have to
> > live with.
> For one thing, it's not too late.  The thing is in draft stage.  All or
> most of the XSL WG members read this list, and do actually care about
> people's thoughts.  I might remind you that the XSLT 1.1 extensions
> mechanism is in response, for a large part, to discussions on this list
> about how people really do need and want interoperable extensions, to the
> degree that such a thing is possible.   If we have got it wrong, then we're
> listening.

I must have missed something. Most of what I've heard is requests for vendors 
to collaborate without necessarily hacking the XSLT spec.

> But so far you haven't convinced me with your arguments.

I'd say I haven't heard a convincing argument *for* xsl:script in the 1.1 
spec, from you, Steve or Michael.  Care to try again?  I've tried pretty hard.

> Engineering with a general audience in mind is damn hard.  I think the XSLT
> 1.1 spec has it about right, but clearly it's not perfect, and won't make
> everone happy.  If you read it carefully, I think it's about as flexible as
> such a mechanism can be.  If there's parts that are problematic to Perl,
> please send comments -- we badly want constructive suggestions on how these
> things might be fixed.  If you really don't want this at all, then start a
> petition or something, and present it to the XSL WG or the W3C.  But my
> impression is that the vast majority of users badly want some sort of
> interoperabile extensions, without having to rewrite the extensions for
> each processor.

No matter how many times this is repeated, it doesn't make it any clearer why 
changes to the XSLT spec are required to enable this interoperability.

My guess is that the vast majority of users would be happy with efforts across 
languages and implementations as a layer on top of XSLT 1.0.

> And, if you truly want interoperable stylesheets, don't use extensions.
> They are problematic, we have never said differently.  But it's better for
> folks to use extensions than for the XSL WG to define mechanisms before
> their time.

I don't follow this bit.

> They are really meant to be a stop-gap measure until the
> language fullfills 99% of what people need to do... which may be a while
> yet.

My guess is that it will never come even close to 70%.  But why is it the 
mission of XSLT to do so?

Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread