Subject: Re: [xsl] reliability of MSXML From: Pedro Pastor <pps@xxxxx> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 23:17:49 +0100 |
First of all, thank you Mr. Carlisle for your initial explanation. Secondly, I am terribly sorry for causing this slightly bitter debate. I feel the fault is mainly mine. I should have been more suspicious about my stylesheet (half laziness and half "badful thinking" about MS tools). That point is extensively and clearly explained in several places at "XSLT Programmer's Reference (2nd edition)", and mainly in chapter 2, "data types" section. On the other hand, as many times as I read this section, I can not understand why it was necessary to define two different data types, RTF and node-set, in the XSLT 1.0. They could be algebraically equivalent if only the node-set is always forced to have a root node or a RTF is considered a single-valued node-set. >From an academic point of view, I rather having XSLT 1.1 new features at hand, even at the risk of making a mistake (as long as those features are going in the same direction of the future 2.0 recommendation). If there is some people disappointed with XSLT evolution is partly the fault of XSLT Working Group, because of its wandering pace to future recommendations. At this point, I would greatly appreciate if the people involved in this process could shed some light about the future evolution towards 2.0 (at least in the key features of the language). The tricky point comes out when you have to deliver standardized tools to your real customers. Finally, thank you Mr. Kay for letting us play in "higher grounds". Pedro Pastor University of Alicante (Spain) Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:58:33PM +0000, Trevor Nash wrote: > > Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > > > It's not too late to *at least* emit a warning when the > > >conversion occurs. Coming from a Working Group member this reflects > > >badly, no ? Why should others take the pain of fixing their bugs > > >when you don't. > > A little strong, I think. David already pointed out that the 1.1 > > Okay, I apologize to Mike for the harsh wording. But you know, > it's very frustrating to hear from "would have been" users that > "oh finally we used somthing else because it didn't worked" and > learning after the fact that this was due to stylesheets which > had been developped with Saxon, like a lot of people do because > it usually gives good error reporting, and that this precise bug > on someone else software blocked adoption of yours. > Most people don't report bugs, they just try another tool until > they think that it works... No way to catch the problem. I was actually > tempted to "force" the same bug just to avoid this problem... I > didn't so far. > > Daniel > > -- > Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/ > veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ > http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] reliability of MSXML, Daniel Veillard | Thread | RE: [xsl] reliability of MSXML, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Re: lookup-table thoughts, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] matching multiple times, , cutlass |
Month |