[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
At 10:47 AM 4/22/2008, Abel wrote:
Hm. I'm not sure this follows. Certainly, if your problem requires string processing, XSLT 1.0 isn't well fitted for the job, and many things will be easier. As for processing intermediate results, I think there's something to be said for doing it the klunky old-fashioned way -- pipelining files -- at the start, or at least till you get a feel for template-based processing. Before that, I'm afraid it might be an invitation to get yourself into trouble.
And while XPath 2.0 is wide, deep and powerful, XPath 1.0 can still be learned in about three hours.
So I'm still not convinced. The reverse could as easily be true, and evidence so far is scant. 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?
Re: [xsl] XSL-T should naturally loop? not grabbing all the children node-sets..
Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-T should naturally loop? not grabbing all the children node-sets.. From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:32:30 -0400 |
At 10:47 AM 4/22/2008, Abel wrote:
Many people find it way easier to learn than XSLT 1.0. This is for one due to the fact that version 1.0 made it very hard to do string processing or to (re)process intermediate result trees.
Hm. I'm not sure this follows. Certainly, if your problem requires string processing, XSLT 1.0 isn't well fitted for the job, and many things will be easier. As for processing intermediate results, I think there's something to be said for doing it the klunky old-fashioned way -- pipelining files -- at the start, or at least till you get a feel for template-based processing. Before that, I'm afraid it might be an invitation to get yourself into trouble.
And while XPath 2.0 is wide, deep and powerful, XPath 1.0 can still be learned in about three hours.
So I'm still not convinced. The reverse could as easily be true, and evidence so far is scant. 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?
Cheers, Wendell
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL-T should naturally lo, Andrew Welch | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL-T should naturally lo, Andrew Welch |
RE: [xsl] Descendant::??, Dan Acuff | Date | Re: [xsl] MSXML 6 and XSLT 2.0, Liam Quin |
Month |