Re: [xslt] Any interest in an alternative syntax for XSLT?
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: Phil Shafer <phil juniper net>
- Cc: The Gnome XSLT library mailing-list <xslt gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [xslt] Any interest in an alternative syntax for XSLT?
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:46:28 -0400
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:26:26PM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Daniel Veillard writes:
> > Something like posting to xml-dev and see what is happening.
> Sounds reasonable. Will do.
> > Assuming it was the case, how long would you help maintain the module
> >code ?
> O(years). I wrote the code over a year ago, and it's shipped as
> an EFT feature for nearly a year. I've been w/ my current company
> going on eight years, and want to see this succeed. That said, no
> one can predict the future.
> FYI: here's some size info on the code (wc -l):
> 161 slaxInternals.h
> 1615 slaxloader.c
> 1673 slaxparser.y
> 1196 slaxwriter.c
> 4645 total
> slaxloader.c and slaxwriter.c include simple unit-test oriented main()
> function (#ifdef UNIT_TEST).
Okay, that looks small, but using yacc is a problem, especially for code
in a library (not all bison/yacc allow to link twice code generated, barring
other code from using it, can be a serious problem), plus in general I
don't trust yacc to work well with unicode, and you need full unicode support
when dealing with XSLT. So independantly of the syntax that would be
a problem. I assume SLAX should handle the same ranges of characters (and
encoding) as the underlying XML model and implementation, right ?
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
] [Thread Prev