Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:28:07 -0700
> Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't understand this.  Why can't they?  Why can't processor
> implementors
> > band together to sort it out?  Why change the XSLT spec?
> >
> > In fact, why can't XSLT implementors in Python, C++, VB, Perl, Java and
> other
> > languages work together on this?
> Do it.  XSLT 1.1 is on hold for a bit while we get some architectual
> ramifications of the 2.0 design sorted out.  If you do it based on 1.0, and
> the processor implementors band together in a way that the user community
> agrees on, believe me, we'll be *very* happy to do the deletions to the 1.1
> draft.

Hmm.  Let's see, on the side that insists on language-bound xsl:script are 
Michael Kay, Steve Muench and Scott Boag.  All Java XSLT implementors, I 
should add.  All, it seems, in the XSLT WG.  All, it seems, reluctant to 
pursue standardizing extensions using the existing XSLT 1.0 facilities.  What 
signal does that send to those of us who feel differently.  Those of us who 
have worked every bit as hard as you have to implement XSLT partly bcause of 
the promise of interoperability.

So I'll ask bluntly.  If someone were to set up a mailing list of implementors 
looking to standardize popular XSLT extensions on top of XSLT 1.0, would the 
Java XSLT implementors join the effort?

> We didn't do this for the fun of it... it was from user requests.

Easy to say.  Harder, I bet, to demonstrate.

> With my selfish corporate hat on and blinders on, it doesn't matter to me
> if Xalan's extensions are interoperable with other processors.  But the
> user community, i.e. the xsl-list, the apache community, and our corporate
> customers, have asked for it.  If you don't like the effort, make
> constructive suggestions, write a complete alternate proposal, or start an
> alternative effort.

I think your point is misdirected.  Everyone wants interoperability.  My 
opinion is that XSLT 1.1 hampers this goal.

But more importantly, I'm still waiting to hear why it isn't possible in XSLT 

> The thing about specifications for general usage is that no one viewpoint
> is correct.  You might even find that some of your views are off-base.

You can be sure that some of my views are off-base (just ask David Carlisle).  
But since they are not purposefully so, I rely on you and your cohort to 
explain exactly where.

> > Actually, I missed the fact that DOM has an appendix with a Java binding.
> > This is probably because at least they kept the Java-centricity strictly
> to
> > that appendix.  XSLT 1.1 does not do so.
> It's supposed to be that way.  You should point out where we missed.
> > Obvious choice is to form an OASIS TC
> Good luck.

I've beeen plain spoken.  Do you care to return the courtesy?

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