On 22/04/2008, Wendell Piez <wapiez(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
XSLT 1.0 is lightweight, fast, widely deployed,
and covers its application domain very well. In particular, there was
nothing in the OP's post that suggested he'd get any particular benefit from
2.0. Is there a reason we should be steering people away from it?
Well the RTF issue is just annoying, and the first item semantics are
a problem... Then there's the "produce output at all costs" mentality
which results in silently incorrect output when you make a mistake
instead of an error message.
Then there's the lack of the XHTML output method - anyone wanting to
avoid minimized elements has to code carefully with XML output method.
Then there's the functions available in 2.0 that make everyday taks
straightforward, which in 1.0 would require some established technique
- the transform and sum problem is the classic. Another is splitting
a string. Another is replacing more that one character at a time.
All basic problems that repeatedly come up but take 10 minutes to
write in 1.0.
If I were to teach 1.0 now, I would find myself saying "but in 2.0 you
can just do this..." all the time...
1.0 is/was great, but 2.0 is such a massive leap forward which once
you've made that jump, you never really want to go back.
--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--