Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)

["Kurt Cagle" <cagle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel,

If you didn't include explicit type conversions (which are a pain to deal
with anyway -- I spend entirely too much time with Saxon 7.3 debugging type
conversion code in XSLT2) do you think you could create something that is
functionally compliant? I was rather hoping to see a version of libxslt for
XSLT2/XPath2 soon.

-- Kurt Cagle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Veillard" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)


> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:47:23PM +0100, Tobias Reif wrote:
> > Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > The dependancy on W3C XML Schemas makes it very very unlikely for me.
> > I agree that dependency on WXS is a bad aspect, but I think it won't be
> > required for all implementations.
>
>   First news to me, how can you back-up that statement ?
>
> > > I can't implement a specification I don't understand.
> > Then there is a lot of room for improvement regarding the spec.
>
>   Well that would probably lead to a complete revamp of
> of the structure part.
>
> > > As as side
> > > effect I can't implement specifications depending on it too.
> > Would Relax NG in the place of WXS solve your problems?
>
>   Of course not: Relax NG does not allow to identify type, at
> best it delegates recognition of "simple types" to other
> specifications like the datatype part of XML Schemas (which is fine
> BTW). Relax NG is dedicated to validation, not to map types to
> part of an XML subtree.
>
> > >    Life is short ... I don't want to bury month and months of
> > > mine into trying to implement (and support !) a spec which is
> > > just too unclear to be understood reliably.
> > Did you express all this as feedback to the editor, authors, and working
> > group?
>
>   I think Michael and Henry know me well enough, and that I propagated
> that back to them. It's also clear that I tried an implementation within
> libxml2 but it became quickly too painful that I focused on other targets.
>
> > I think the spec can only improve if every implementer feeds back any
> > problems he sees, especially if they keep him from implementing the
spec.
>
>   I don't think I'm the only one :-)
> There is also a threshold of how much feedback seems needed to
> clear up points of a spec. In most case a focused feedback makes
> sense (and I know that, I have been involved in W3C working group
> activities first as staff and then as external contributor since 98)
> and is rightly appreciated. But the Primer can't replace an authoritative
> spec where when you have a question reading it provide the answer,
> that is very hard for most of XML Schemas Structure part.
> Anyway I didn't want to get into this rathole, I'm just stating
> why I think at this point that I won't be able to implement XSLT-2.0
> nor XPath-2.0 anytime soon.
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
> 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