On 27/01/2013 08:23, davep wrote:
IMHO 3.0 has rolled 180 degrees from the one man xslt 1.0 effort and
is now the
proverbial horse designed by committee.
I think there are two questions here: is it maintaining design
integrity, and are the new features in touch with real user requirements?
On design integrity, I think we're doing a reasonably good job. There
are constraints imposed by the XML/XPath syntax split, and of course by
backwards compatibility, but I don't think we're producing something
that looks as if different parts were designed by different people. As
for requirements, I would fully accept that we're perhaps
over-influenced by the requirements of the top end of the market; in the
battle between rich functionality and simplicity, rich functionality
always seems to win. As Liam has been arguing, there are probably more
people who would like to see XPath smaller rather than bigger, but the
people who want it bigger tend to shout louder, and to win the day.
If you have specific criticisms of the XSLT 3.0 effort, I'd love to hear
them.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--