This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSLT 1.1 comments
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche dot ogbuji at fourthought dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:18:56 -0700
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> So far, on this thread, we've heard feedback from a few
> XSLT processor implementors:
>
> FourThought, makers of 4XSLT (a Python XSLT 1.0 implementation)
>
> Unicorn Enterprises, maker of Unicorn XSLT (a C++ XSLT implementation)
>
> Daniel Veillard, maker of libxml-based XSLT processor (in C, I believe)
>
> Other than the few good points about making the spec clearer,
> the executive summary of the feedback seems to be "why are Java
> and ECMAScript special?"
I think it's *very* important to note that even if "Python" and "C" were added
as first-class bindings in the spec, I'd still be against xsl:script. Note
that there will soon be 3 Python XSLT processors and I still don't believe
that XSLT 1.1 adds anything to help us standardize beyond what XSLT 1.0
provided.
I usually have harsh words about the Java interest because they seem the most
guilty of the attitude that "everyone uses Java anyway, why bother worrying
about anything else". format-number() is another case in point of this. It
causes *real* pain when an implementor has to find away to implement such an
awkward mechanism when his language has perfectly useful, and far more mature,
numerical formatting constructs. I bet you implemented format-number() in
OracleXSL in ten minutes. It has taken the 4XSLT implementors a dreadful
amount of work.
The XSLT 1.1 charter talks about pressure from the community for language
bindings, but the only talk I've heard about it has been from Java
implementors. It *appears*, and I might be wrong, that this XSLT 1.1 draft
was produced without thinking of the general ramifications of the changes
outside of the Java interest.
I don't think it's any Conspiracy of Illuminati, but I do know that
well-meaning missteps are just as problematic as intentional ones, and I think
that the strongest condemnation of xsl:script and its implications is in order.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list