Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Kay wrote: > > > > > Comparison (number of printed pages of the specification) > > > > xPath 1.0 xPath 2.0 increase > > ---------------------------------- > > 45 254 564% > > > > > > XSLT 1.0 XSLT 2.0 increase > > ---------------------------------- > > 128 385 301% > > > > And your conclusion is? Your XSLT book now stands at 938 pages. How big will it be for XSLT 2.0? 1500 pages? Can a technology which takes 1500 pages to describe truly be considered a "Web technology"? The tendency of version 2.0 of the W3 technologies is to "add more stuff". Version 2.0 of XSLT, xPath, and XML Schemas are all doing the same thing - adding more stuff. I question that that is the right approach. I like the approach taken in RSS 1.0 - creating modules. I like the idea that Rick Jelliffe has been espousing for years - no one schema language can do everything; allow for multiple schema languages, which can work together seamlessly. I like the idea of technologies designed to encourage cottage industries to crop up to support niche markets. What do I conclude? I conclude that the strategy for generating version 2.0 of many of the XML family of technologies is fundamentally flawed. Unless the strategy is changed the entire family of technologies will collapse from its own enormous weight. /Roger
|
