On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Vladimir Nesterovsky
<vladimir(_at_)nesterovsky-bros(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm sorry if this post opens a new thread, as I'm answering to my original
post, which probably have no reference id assigned by a server.
To clarify my position, I shall ask another question:
Why xslt is not a ground for XProc?
In my opinion it is a natural sequence of events:
a demand of pipelining, error handling, and so on, is appearing;
to answer the the demand people design extensions to xslt (functions and
instructions);
these extensions are discussed and standardized;
XProc is appearing as something based on xslt.
I think that you should take a look at the requirements and use cases
doc for XProc
http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-requirements/
whereas I am with you that one of the reasons why something like XProc
is emerging is because of the clunky approaches using XSLT, Ant,
Cocoon, and a whole host of psuedo pipelining approaches.
to be specific, XProc is a response to a defined set of requirements,
but it is not 'based on xslt'.
hth, Jim Fuller
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--