On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Colin Paul Adams
<colin(_at_)colina(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
"James" == James Fuller
<james(_dot_)fuller(_dot_)2007(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
James> I think if we had XSLT 2.0 in the browser then we would
James> have XQuery for nearly free.
saxon doesn't implement 2 different processors for its XSLT 2.0 and
XQuery implementations ... I will leave details to MKay in this paper
http://www.idealliance.org/proceedings/xtech05/papers/02-03-01/
on the differences of XSLT 2.0 and XQuery
as an aside, eXist XMLDB people (in the form of a Google Summer of
Code project) is now embarking on an XSLT 2.0 implementationby
effectively putting an abstraction over its XQuery implementation.
I am not saying its not difficult, but if one goes through the trouble
of implementing XSLT 2.0 for the browser, you are going some way to
implementing XQuery as well, though I agree with Liam assertions about
XQuery 'sweet spot' being on the server side.
cheers, Jim
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--