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

Re: [xsl] Saxon for C/PHP/Python/etc

Subject: Re: [xsl] Saxon for C/PHP/Python/etc
From: Steve Ball <Steve.Ball@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:06:18 +1000

Hi All,

A few years ago (2009 or 2010 from memory) I asked a similar question on the
libxml2/libxslt mailing list: who would be interested in upgrading
libxml2/libxslt to XPath2/XSLT2[*]? The resounding answer is that everyone
wants it but none is willing to devote time/effort to making it happen; in
particular Daniel Veillard.

As a result I started a closed-source development myself. However, this
project requires significant engineering resources and the project has stalled
for the last 2 years (while I concentrate on paying work).

NB. this was in the days before KickStarter. Perhaps a KickerStarter-type
campaign would gather enough resources to restart this work?

Steve Ball

* XPath is implemented in libxml2, so in order to fully implement XPath2 &
XSLT2 development must be done on both libxml2 and libxslt.

PS. a C implementation of XPath2/XSLT2 does not necessarily have to rely on
libxml2/libxslt but it is a good starting place.

On 27/09/2013, at 11:07 PM, Tony Graham <tgraham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, September 27, 2013 11:57 am, Adam Retter wrote:
>> After hearing Tony Graham's lightening talk at the XML Summer School I
> Thank you for the timely reminder.  Slides, all five minutes' worth, now
> at http://www.mentea.net/resources/after-libxslt.pdf (and linked to from
> http://inasmuch.as/2013/09/27/is-there-life-after-libxslt-1/ and
> http://www.mentea.net/resources.html).
> Lauren Wood and Matt Biddulph helped start this cycle of the permathread
> because they're interested in a libXSLT-replacement for Ruby in
> particular.
> ...
>> On 27 September 2013 11:50, Dr O'Neil Delpratt <oneil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Dear XSLT community,
>>> I have recently been looking at the possbilities of making XSLT 2.0/3.0
>>> processor available to the C/C++ world.
>>> At present there seems to be a real shortage or a lack of support for
>>> anything greater than XSLT 1.0 (i.e libxslt, Xalan, etc).
>>> The benefits are clearly to be seen: having a fullfledged XSLT 2.0 in C
>>> would be great for the PHP/Python/Ruby/... communities, who currently
>>> rely
>>> on libxslt.
> The other side of it, IMO, is that the processor needs to read and write
> libXML2-compatible trees so all the code that (for anything more than
> file-file transformation) currently produces the inputs and consumes the
> output from libXSLT (or from a language binding to libXSLT) can 'just
> work' until such time as code can be rewritten to use any superior
> 'native' interface of the processor.
> Regards,
> Tony Graham                                   tgraham@xxxxxxxxxx
> Consultant                                 http://www.mentea.net
> Mentea       13 Kelly's Bay Beach, Skerries, Co. Dublin, Ireland
> --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
>  XML, XSL-FO and XSLT consulting, training and programming
>     Chair, Print and Page Layout Community Group @ W3C

Current Thread