[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: "Tony Graham" <tgraham@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:08:42 +0100 (IST)

On Fri, October 4, 2013 2:06 am, Steve Ball wrote:
> 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.

In fairness, AFAICT, Daniel Veillard's paying work has moved in another
direction (and to another country) compared to when libXSLT was written.

> As a result I started a closed-source development myself. However, this

Your LIBX* is hard to find these days: http://www.explain.com.au/libx/

> project requires significant engineering resources and the project has
> stalled for the last 2 years (while I concentrate on paying work).

I know the feeling and the necessity.

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

I can't remember if I said it in my talk as I'd intended, but Kickstarter,
and LIBX* being pre-Kickstarter, was kicked around in the discussions that
followed.  As was Google Summer of Code and the potential usefulness to
web browsers of a XSLT 2.0 library.

It is an idea that doesn't go away (hence the reference to 'permathread'
below), but who beyond the people on this list and the largely inactive
people on the libXSLT list would be potential donors for a
Kickstarter-like fund?

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

I've yet to be convinced that it is a good starting place provided the
processor can masquerade as libxml2/libxslt for the sake of existing
programs that use those libraries.

> 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

Matt Patterson [1].

>> because they're interested in a libXSLT-replacement for Ruby in
>> particular.

This does come up in the context of people wanting a XSLT 2.0-lite, but if
starting now -- and starting a Kickstarter-like campaign now -- would it
be better to architect for something that could grow to full XSLT 2.0 or
something that could grow to full XSLT 3.0?

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

[1]
http://www.biglist.com/lists/lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/archives/201309/msg00087.html


Current Thread
Keywords