[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: Schemas in XSLT 2.0 (Was: Re: [xsl] keys and idrefs - XSLT2 request?)

---

---

I'm actually inclined to agree with this. I think schemas add a degree of
complexity to XSLT that run counter to what it does best. As it stands right
now, XSLT is like a loosely typed language a la Python or Javascript, and
that lack of typing makes it very useful for handling all kinds of
metaphoric transformations ... ones that simply utilize overall structural
patterns to perform the transformations, then subclassing the exceptions. I
worry that is XSLT introduces type, it will 1) be a major performance drain,
2) strongly limit the metaphorical transformations, and 3) lock it
explicitly into XML Schema, rather than making it possible to work with some
other schema language.

-- Kurt Cagle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <xsl-editors@xxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Schemas in XSLT 2.0 (Was: Re: [xsl] keys and idrefs - XSLT2
request?)


> At 4:12 PM +0100 10/10/01, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>
> >So, the first question is whether XSLT 2.0 should mandate support of
> >XML Schema within XSLT processors (i.e. you've got to be able to
> >validate against XML Schema in order to be a conformant XSLT 2.0
> >processor).
>
> I propose something even more radical. Drop schemas completely from XPath
2.0/XSLT 2.0. First do everything that can be done without considering
schemas; e.g. better grouping, multiple document output, XHTML output
method, text inclusions, explicit matching of default namespaces, etc.  This
could be implemented and finished much more quickly, and would be useful in
and of itself.
>
> Then, and only then, begin work on XPath 3.0/XSLT 3.0 which would consider
only issues relevant to PSVI support. By this time we might actually have
some schema aware APIs to build on top of.
>
> Furthermore this would also make XSLT 2.0 and 3.0 a lot easier to teach
and learn because it would be more obvious what depended on what. You
wouldn't, for example, have to learn schemas in order to support multiple
output documents.
> --
>
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> |          The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001)           |
> |              http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/              |
> |   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/   |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> |  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
> |  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/     |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

---