• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:17:23 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1026-110D12AF9C5211D79E920003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> >
> >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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Joe Fawcett" <joefawcett@h...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)

• References:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• 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