• To: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:54:39 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3EE4D7B1.85D735A9@m...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> 
> 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?

I think that if you actually measure the size of the languages by number
of productions, operators, elements, attributes, etc, then you find
XPath has grown by about 70% and XSLT by around 40% - which is an annual
growth rate of about 10-15%. The rest of the growth in the document
sizes represents more thorough specification of each language feature.

Michael Kay

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)

• References:
  • xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: Re: most contested area of xml schema interoperability?
• 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