RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Identifying two tags...")

Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Identifying two tags...")
From: Emmanuel Oviosa <Emmanuel.Oviosa@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:08:58 +0100
I feel your pain Dan, I am getting really scared myself about all this XSLT
stuff. I thought it was all going to be easy stuff.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Holmsand [mailto:holmsand@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 May 2002 15:04
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Identifying two tags...")

Jeni Tennison wrote:
> So you'll be able to use XPath 2.0 without worrying about schema stuff
> without any problems. With any luck, there will be levels of
> conformance that mean that processors won't have to support the more
> complex side of the validation system described in the XPath 2.0
> draft, which means that if you're not interested in XML Schema
> validation then you won't have to be weighed down by a processor that
> is [ref.].

Respectfully, I don't agree with the "no worrying" part. Unless there is 
  a named conformance level that doesn't require knowledge of the XML 
Schema spec, the PSVI, the modified PSVI defined by the XQuery 1.0 and 
XPath 2.0 data model, the XQuery formal semantics and the multitude of 
language about types in the XPath specs themselves - and I decide never 
to touch the "full XSLT 2.0" but only "XSLT 2.0 light" - and can 
persuade all others to do the same - I will have to worry about the 

There will always be people using static typing in xslt (whether they 
know it or not, or maybe just because it is there), and this will, I'm 
sure, cause problems that I will have to deal with at some point or other.

And I'm not exactly thrilled about working with a language that I don't 
understand half of. XSLT 1.0 is not trivial, but it is graspable. XSLT 
2.0 with static typing is not (I mean: has anyone actually read and fully understood it? And that's 
just the foundation for the foundations of the data model of XPath 2 as 
it is used in XSLT 2. Wow.). I mean: I thought c++ was kind of complex, 
but c++ suddenly seems like childs play compared with XSLT 2.

In other words, I'm very much in favour of the conformance level "XSLT 
2.0-no-schema-types" (XSLTNST..?). I'm not so much worried about an 
implementation not handling XSLT 2 fast enough - I'm worried about me 
not handling XSLT 2 at all. And I wouldn't feel bad if the static typing 
stuff was dropped altogether.

Dan Holmsand

 XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread