Re: [xslt] Any interest in an alternative syntax for XSLT?

On Thursday 31 August 2006 10:48, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 06:25:56PM -0600, Danny Brian wrote:
> > > What are libxslt's plans for xslt2?
> >
> > I would very much like to see an xslt2 project begun, and would bet
> > that some contributors (code+funds) would not be hard to find. There
> > are many needs (yes, pre-recommendation needs) for a C library.
> > Berkeley DB XML 2.3 (forthcoming) has further isolated its XQuery
> > engine (although it's C++), so that might be one option for a
> > starting point.
> >
> > C'mon Daniel! libxslt2!
>   You're looking for at least 6 months of programming and debugging
> full time by someone who know the library and the associated specs.
> I suggest you hire Kasimier to implement it if you really need it.

> I don't have time, my employeer won't let me get 6 months off for it 
> and honnestly I don't blame them. Print the set of associated specs,
> weight them, print the XPath1/XSLT-1 specs, weight them, It took me
> around 1 year to get the latter done, compare the weights, make a
> linear estimation and take into consideration experience done with first
> set.

I don't get your logic. As I see it, you're arguing that you sympathize with 
your employer for not implementing it because XSL-T 2.0 is big. By that 
reasoning, they should neither sponsor Linux development. And no one would 
build medical equipment, space stations or C++ compilers(since they're big).

Of course, one can argue that the effort/return ratio is not big enough for 
implementing, but that's a different thing.

But I do agree that implementing XSL-T 2.0 requires a large effort.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]