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

Re: [xsl] Version 3.0 - which software use this? I have to use 1.0 (xerces/xalan) all the time


Subject: Re: [xsl] Version 3.0 - which software use this? I have to use 1.0 (xerces/xalan) all the time
From: "[x] cross solution" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:05:43 +0100

Hi Michael Kay,

thanks for the detailed information.
sorry, i doesnt use Java.

Market is always a commercial business model for me.
I also doesnt want to work for free.
Many software use a payed license of a open source library (for example
Vaadin - google web toolkit). Not everybody want to build it from scretch on,
they buy and implement it in their software.
Commercial software also need also support and pay for it.

>>> Is the License for a 3.0 library to expensive?
This was my question for the commercial way.
Does your company doesnt offer libraries for other software companies? Is
this to expensive for them?

OK - they feel comfortable with 1.0, but are the costs for a software vendor
so expensive?
All markets are ROI driven - maybe they doesnt see an ROI of this license
- also they are bounded for a long time"

Thanks for your information

armin



Am 02.03.2014 um 11:25 schrieb Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>
> On 2 Mar 2014, at 09:35, [x] cross solution <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> i see the spec 3.0 is published and have many new functions, which i want
to use.
>> Also 2.0 was much better than 1.0.
>> But - i have to use all the time 1.0, because the most software use the
libraries from the apache project (xerces and xalan).
>
> If you are using Java, then you don't need to use Xalan, you can use Saxon,
which implements the latest standards.
>>
>> Does anybody know, why the software on the markets only use the 1.0
standard?
>> Is this a license thing? Is the License for a 3.0 library to expensive?
>
> There are broadly two categories of 1.0 processor: open source processors
produced by enthusiastic individuals in their spare time, and open source
processors produced by enthusiastic corporations such as Microsoft and IBM.
>
> The first category didn't get upgraded because the individuals found more
interesting/rewarding things to do with their spare time.
>
> The second category didn't get upgraded because the people within the
relevant corporations who wanted to upgrade them failed to persuade their
management that there was a good business case for spending a couple of
million dollars on software that would be given away free.
>
> So it's basically a failure of the open source "business model". Lots of
people have got value from open source 1.0 processors, and none of this value
has fed back into investment into advancing the technology.
>
> Meanwhile (as I pointed out in my talk on XSLT 3.0 in Prague, which you can
watch on video) there are lots of 2.0 processors available (Saxon, Altova, IBM
Websphere, Intel, Marklogic) but all of them are funded by a commercial
business model, even if in some cases there are free versions available.
>>
>>
>> Can anybody explain, why the market still stays on the same place since
many, many years?
>>
>
> The key point is "market". When did you last go to the market and find free
tomatoes on offer?
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica


Current Thread
Keywords