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/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xslt mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xslt
