I just think that XSLT 2.0 is very close to Perl, Python and Ruby,
just not yet as mature. What's the need for one more language in
this family?
use what you feel comfortable. some of us like well-formedness and
validity.
Much of the syntax of XSLT 2.0 is not XML syntax. Neither regular
expressions nor XPath 2.0 is.
A language with consistent parser gives more use of non-xml well-formedness
and validity than a schema for the XML part of XSLT 2.0
are you simply trolling, or do you really have a point?
No, I am not trolling. I've spent time reading the spec. I see that
it is just another scripting language with very little left of the
good things contained in the original idea of XSLT.
There were achievements and flaws in XSLT 1.0. An elegant tool to
manipulate XML infosets is an achievement. Inconsistencies in the
syntax of both XPath and XSLT ar flaws.
Instead of fixing flaws and securing achievements by producing a
probably source-incompatible but more consistent and easy to use
version 2, the committee has developed a specification which is
beyond my personal capabilities to learn and use. It can be my
fault, but I don't see what can be made easier or at least with
comparable easiness using XSLT 2.0 than with any of other well-developed
scripting languages currently widely deployed.
David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list