[xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Was: Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Namespaces + XLST)

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

>
> Sure. As other posters on this list, I just don't buy the (ugly IMO)
> PSVI vision to which XSLT 2.0 belongs and, for that reason, I consider
> XSLT 1.0 both simpler and more elegant :) ...

With XSLT 2.0 I can have expressions like:

    f:pow(sum(f:map(f:flip(f:pow(),10), 1 to 10)), 0.1)

or

    f:transform-and-sum(f:flip(f:substring-before(), '*'),
                                       data(/*/*/@colwidth))


or

    f:map(f:round-half-to-even(f:sqrt(2, 0.000001)), 0 to 13)


These are really elegant compared to the xslt 1.0 code necessary to
produce the same result.

Another reason I find XSLT 2.0 more elegant than XSLT 1.0 is that
there isn't anymore any need to use an xx:node-set() extension
function.

What is really not elegant at all in XSLT 2.0 is the impossibility to
define user data types inline in a stylesheet  -- forcing the
programmer to artificially separate in different files type definition
from type usage makes XSLT 2.0 rather unique... :(

Of course, one would also like to see nested sequences, type classes
and type equations...


Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev