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

Re: [xsl] Does Saxon support XPath 3.1?


Subject: Re: [xsl] Does Saxon support XPath 3.1?
From: "Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 16:39:54 -0000

Hi Florent,

> you might be interested by the page
> http://w3.org/community/expath/wiki/Engines#Comparison.  It might be a bit
> outdated now, the only XPath 3.1 it shows is eXist, but I am sure at least
> BaseX supports it as well, as you said.

Thank you for this link.

I believe that what would be most useful, is the data whether and to
what extent a different implementation implements a given W3C
specification.

Reading this page I was immediately interested in QuiXTools, which is
said to implement XSLT 3.0. However, on its project page:
https://project.inria.fr/quix-tool-suite/quixslt/ , one can read that:

"Which fragment of XSLT is currently supported by QuiXSLT?

Syntactically, QuiXSLTfollows the official XSLT W3C Recommendation
(even though it does not implement the full standard) . The current
version of QuiXSLT supports the following elements:

named templates,
template rules,
instructions call-template, apply-templates, if, choice, for-each,
copy, copy-of,
dynamic content creation instructions: attribute, value-ofb&

Templates can be called with any number of parameters."


So, no specific, new XSLT 3.0 feature is mentioned at all.

For any specific implementation It would be valuable to have data
whether or not it implements the full set of features and if not, what
features are not implemented. Ultimately, the % of pass/fail for the
available W3C test suits. A link to a user-reviews page would be
useful.


Cheers,
Dimitre



On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Hi Dimitre,
>
>   I don't have write access to XSL List anymore, so this most likely will
> not show up on the list, but you might be interested by the page
> http://w3.org/community/expath/wiki/Engines#Comparison.  It might be a bit
> outdated now, the only XPath 3.1 it shows is eXist, but I am sure at least
> BaseX supports it as well, as you said.
>
>   Any update welcome ;-)
>
>   Regards,
>
> --
> Florent Georges
> http://fgeorges.org/
> http://h2oconsulting.be/
>
>
>
>
>
> Le Lundi 29 juin 2015 5h02, "Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx"
> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a C)crit :
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 00:22 +0000, Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>>> I apologize if I am asking for something obvious, but
>>> straightforward searching didn't locate any statements about Saxon
>>> support (implementation) of the XPath 3.1 W3C Standard.
>>
>> XPath 3.1 is not yet a W3C Recommendation (the nearest thing we have
>> to a standard).
>
> Thanks Liam,
>
> Yes, but XPath 3.1 is (since December 2014) a Candidate
> Recommendation, which is the closest point to becoming a
> Recommendation :)
>
>
>>
>> My understanding is that the commercial version of Saxon may have 3.1
>> support, but that's probably a question for the Saxon mailing list.
>
> I deliberately asked the question in the xsl-list, because most
> readers are using Saxon as their preferred XSLT processor. I am also
> discussing alternatives to Saxon, in case it doesn't provide support
> for XPath 3.1 (such as using BaseX)-- and thus the topic is wider than
> just Saxon.
>
>>
>> There may also be support for XPath 3.1 and XQuery 3.1 in eXist, but
>> I'm not certain.
>
> Wasn't there some page with comparison of how different implementation
> support different versions of XPath? I vaguely remember that in the
> past there was such a page that provided information how different
> XSLT processors were passing the W3C Test Suite -- and this directly
> correlates to their compliants to the respective standard.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre


Current Thread
Keywords