On Tuesday 04 July 2006 09:21, Buchcik, Kasimier wrote:
[...]
> Damn, I knew somehow that writing about XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 would
> lead to trouble :-) I think an implementation was not yet planned,
> plus I don't know if we'll have enough human recources. I would love
> to help here; since I'm already trying to refactor Libxslt, which
> should also be helpfull for a later XSLT 2.0 implementation, I volunteer
> for that side (Bill, what about you?).
> It would also be nice to have some people outside of the core-team
> involved; I always wondered why there isn't much more input from
> other people - are we so scary?
All C-guys are scary ;-)
> I don't know if Daniel has enough
> time to plan that beast; if there would be more helping hands we
> could take over more burden from him.
I can't code, but I will gladly discuss different implementation approaches,
interpreting the specs, performance stuff, and so on. So, I'll drop into
discussions on 2.0 stuff if it isn't too tied to libxml2 internals.
I think implementing XSL-T 2.0 starts at implementing XPath 2.0, because
that's the most intrusive part. The differences between XSL-T 1.0 & 2.0
aren't that invasive, while XPath 2.0 carries a whole new data model and a
type system.
Cheers,
Frans
1.
http://patternist.sf.net/documentation/API/
_______________________________________________
xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
