Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)|
From: S Woodside <sbwoodside@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:59:43 -0500
On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 06:13 AM, Michael Kay wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that the query crowd should take
their schema and go find another sandpit to play in, taking
the elegant advances of XSLT/XPATH2 as an advance on prior
art and available to use as needed for their own purposes.
Actually, XQuery is going to have two levels of conformance as well.
There are people on the XQuery side of the fence who aren't interested
in schemas either. And we wouldn't be doing schema support in XSLT
unless there were major vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM who
claim that their users are clamouring for it.
The central point that started this whole debate and now seems to be
lost, is that WXS has problems. XMLs roots are in simplifying markup,
allowing extensibility, future proofing -- all the good stuff that
Simon St. Laurent's always talking about. Now with WXS we have this
schema language that's so complicated that even the advanced folks say
unabashedly that they don't understand it. I don't understand it, so I
use RNG. XQuery decided to align with WXS -- that's collateral damage
from WXS. Folks here are saying they want XSLT2 to stay free of the WXS
fallout, that seems reasonable.
The big vendors may benefit from selling expensive consultants and
tools, and they may benefit from devising customized solution systems
that modularize the complexity. In the long run, however, I think more
people win if the technology is designed such that it can be fully
understood by the individuals who use it.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list