• To: <michael.h.kay@n...>,"'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@h...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 07:22:32 +0100
• References: <001e01c33067$3e825740$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• Reply-to: "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@h...>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:17 PM
Subject: RE:  xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0


> > >
> > >Is the XSLT 1.0 described by Mike Kay's book in 938 pages
> > more complex
> > >than the XSLT 1.0 described by the specification in 45
> > pages?
> >
> > This is an especially tough problem for those of us who earn
> > our livings writing and editing books on these subjects.
> >
>
> And it's just as tough for those of us who are moonlighting authors!
>
> I haven't yet decided how to tackle this problem in doing an XSLT 2.0
> Programmer's Reference. It will almost certainly have to be less
> comprehensive than the 1.0 version, or no-one will buy it.
> I've got various ideas, and you'll have to wait and see what I (and the
> publishers) come up with.
>
> Michael Kay
>
Personally I'd buy it what ever the size...
The advantage of a huge specification is that if it were that easy to read
and understand I wouldn't need books like yours Michael. Keep up the good
work.

-- 

Joe

• References:
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread