• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:42:57 -0700
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610210245.024e2b68@p...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648446D@R...> <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648446D@R...> <5.2.0.9.2.20030610210245.024e2b68@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529

Dave Pawson wrote:

 >> The way I see things, in a first phase most people just won't use the
 >> typing features of XSLT 2.0 and just use it as a better XSLT 1.0.
 >
 > Without the type stuff, its little better than 1.0

I'll move to XSLT 2.0 any day just to use it as a better XSLT 1.0, so
I obviously don't agree. But that's just me. BTW that's not saying
XSLT 2.0 could not be better.

 >> Regarding the difficulties, I agree, but it's in general easier to
 >> teach a language that is well-designed rather than one that is not.
 >
 > Which is why 1.0 succeeded?

Only kind of. I wish XSLT adoption was more widespread. XSLT 1.0's
quirks have definitely not made its adoption easier.

-Erik

• References:
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Market-driven vice Committee-driven technology evolution
• Next by Date: Re: Market-driven vice Committee-driven technology evolution
• 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