RE: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default

Subject: RE: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default
From: Pieter Reint Siegers Kort <pieter.siegers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:25:12 -0600
Thanx all, especially our two Michaels, that was good to read :-)

Michael Champion wrote:
> that is why we are waiting until XSLT 2.0 is actually a Recommendation
before announcing any implementation plans or schedule

O, do I read some kind of "we'll come up with XSLt 2.0"? :-)

Michael Champion wrote:
> XQuery  in SQL Server is a bit of a special case...

Hey, common, tell us more - what is supposed to be a "stable" subset of
XQuery?

My personal experience with WD-xsl was just great, I remember entering the
XML world at that time, and thought MS did a great thing to bring early XSL
support. I just updated my stylesheets when newer versions of MSXML came
out, and never have had a real headache in doing it - mine were always small
and simple ones :-)

I think that after all, with all that has happened, I think that MS took a
good decision in not bringing WD's in their products anymore, they show
they've learnt their lessons, and I'm confident that they'll come up with
both  XQuery 1.0 AND XSLT 2.0 (right? :) when the Rec specs are there. Wasn'
that Q1 2006, or something? Good, then we have (at least) one year to go,
that's not much.

We at Saxon.NET will be starting the port of Saxon real soon now.

Cheers,
<prs/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Miircoles, 09 de Marzo de 2005 10:03 a.m.
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default

 "M. David Peterson" wrote:
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:32:48 -0700

"In fact one of the primary reasons Microsoft has held back from providing
direct support for the XSLT 2.0 spec is based on the last second 'split' of
the 1.0 spec into the XSL (FO) and XSLT specifications causing an
incompatible processor to be propogated and a support nightmare to be
invoked. "

I was not at Microsoft nor involved with the XSLT WG in 1998-1999, but my
understanding is similar to those who replied that the XSL-FO / XSLT split
had nothing to do with MS shipping an XSLT implementation that was
incompatible with the eventual Recommendation.  There were some interesting
points raised in the replies, and  I really have no opinion about their
historical accuracy or fairness.

I can only speak to the *current* perception in the WebData XML team at MS
about the lessons we as a company and an industry learned from this
experience. The sense I get from my colleagues who were around is that it
*was* a good faith effort to implement what they understood to be the draft
spec, along with various improvements to make it suitable
to known customer needs.    I will say that my personal view at the
time was that Microsoft's support for XSLT, flawed and premature though it
clearly was in hindsight, was an attempt to do the Right Thing.
Furthermore, it had the result of offering considerable credibility to XSLT
and creating a demand for XSLT tools and experience..  I can very easily
imagine a world in which XSLT shared the fate of XLink, if  MS had waited
for the final spec and for customer demand to emerge before supporting it in
its core products.

The MS position going forward is, as I understand it from my rather brief
experience, NEVER AGAIN -- we will not ship support of a draft
Recommendation in actual products.  That is why we removed the preview
implementation of XQuery from the .NET 2.0 framework, that is why we are
waiting until XSLT 2.0 is actually a Recommendation before announcing any
implementation plans or schedule. (XQuery  in SQL Server is a bit of a
special case ... in any event we're not claiming to ship a conformant
implementation, just something that leverages the years of experience that
have gone into XQuery and meets pressing customer needs).

Current Thread