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

Re: [xsl] New XSLT 3.0 Working Draft

Subject: Re: [xsl] New XSLT 3.0 Working Draft
From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:44:24 +0200

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Michele R Combs <mrrothen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Heh.   You're quite right.  Congratulations and yay for the new features, especially the accumulators and catch-ability :)

yes XSL 3.0 seems to be a good mix of features, super congrats to the WG

> I guess I was thinking of for example browsers being able to handle 2.0 features (which I don't think any can, can they?), but you're right of course, lots of people are using it internally.

lets face it, the days of getting your fav language inside of the
browser are over ... it wont be xsl (or perl, php, ruby, python or
whatever) ... it will be javascript and you have an alternative in
saxon-ce ;)

in certain respects, we may look back on xslt support in the browser
as an anamoly that actually hurt adoption in the long run ... unsure,
but XSLT is well suited for many tasks and is not going away anytime

Jim Fuller

> Michele
> suitably chastened
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] New XSLT 3.0 Working Draft
> On 10/07/2012 19:01, Michele R Combs wrote:
> such a spoilsport:-) the correct response is "congratulations" or "interesting new features"! or something:-)
>> Since relatively few folks adopted 2.0
> How did you measure that? certainly almost all the traffic here has been
> xslt2 for years. (One of the shocks of looking at the xslt questions on stackoverflow where I look occasionally is that there is still there a tendency towards XSLT 1 use, which I found rather shocking really.
> Outside of a browser I'd not use xslt 1.
>  > what do we think the chances are of 3.0 being adopted?
> Crystal balls required for that bit...
> David

Current Thread