On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote: > Well, the use case is to allow browsers to move to XPath2/XSLT2 at some > point in the future, without having to maintain another engine.
Sorry about bringing up the XPath2 rathole that's now expanding into the XSLT2 rathole. My point was that since XPath2/XSLT2 made incompatible changes, there isn't a smooth path for moving to XPath2/XSLT2 proper in browsers in the future even if browser vendors felt that it was worthwhile to expend the effort. There seems to be a potential migration path to XPath2_compat/XSLT2_compat, though, but do the people who want XPath2/XSLT2 want just the compat mode variants or the variants that the relevant WG treats as the primary ones? In any case, I think XPath2/XSLT2 have a bad investment/payoff ratio from the browser point of view, so I think it makes sense for people who want to use XSLT2 in browsers to license Saxon-CE (XSLT2 implemented in JavaScript) from Saxonica instead of expecting native implementations in browsers. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
