Hi Eric,
Sure. As other posters on this list, I just don't buy the (ugly IMO)
PSVI vision to which XSLT 2.0 belongs and, for that reason, I consider
XSLT 1.0 both simpler and more elegant :) ...
With XSLT 2.0 I can have expressions like:
f:pow(sum(f:map(f:flip(f:pow(),10), 1 to 10)), 0.1)
or
f:transform-and-sum(f:flip(f:substring-before(), '*'),
data(/*/*/@colwidth))
or
f:map(f:round-half-to-even(f:sqrt(2, 0.000001)), 0 to 13)
These are really elegant compared to the xslt 1.0 code necessary to
produce the same result.
Another reason I find XSLT 2.0 more elegant than XSLT 1.0 is that
there isn't anymore any need to use an xx:node-set() extension
function.
What is really not elegant at all in XSLT 2.0 is the impossibility to
define user data types inline in a stylesheet -- forcing the
programmer to artificially separate in different files type definition
from type usage makes XSLT 2.0 rather unique... :(
Of course, one would also like to see nested sequences, type classes
and type equations...
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--