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

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:48:56PM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> On Thursday 31 August 2006 10:48, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > 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 

  No. That what it brings on the table compared to the cost of development
is really not enough, the incremental gain from 1->2 doesn't look worth
the effort to me for a company specialized in the OS core.
  What we got by implementing version 1 was a significant improvement over
state of the art. The cost to chase version 2 now look way too heavy to
what it brings. Personnaly I have no need I can think of for XSLT2, considering
the set of features from XSLT-1 + EXSLT I can manage to do everything I
think it is reasonable to do at that level. IMHO a lot of people are trying
to do too much at the XSLT level, it's a good technology but for a very limited
set of problems.

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

  yes.

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

  Kind of obvious.

Daniel

-- 
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/