[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Was: Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Namespaces + XLST)
Subject: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Was: Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Namespaces + XLST) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:23:02 +1000 |
Hi Eric, > > Sure. As other posters on this list, I just don't buy the (ugly IMO) > PSVI vision to which XSLT 2.0 belongs and, for that reason, I consider > XSLT 1.0 both simpler and more elegant :) ... With XSLT 2.0 I can have expressions like: f:pow(sum(f:map(f:flip(f:pow(),10), 1 to 10)), 0.1) or f:transform-and-sum(f:flip(f:substring-before(), '*'), data(/*/*/@colwidth)) or f:map(f:round-half-to-even(f:sqrt(2, 0.000001)), 0 to 13) These are really elegant compared to the xslt 1.0 code necessary to produce the same result. Another reason I find XSLT 2.0 more elegant than XSLT 1.0 is that there isn't anymore any need to use an xx:node-set() extension function. What is really not elegant at all in XSLT 2.0 is the impossibility to define user data types inline in a stylesheet -- forcing the programmer to artificially separate in different files type definition from type usage makes XSLT 2.0 rather unique... :( Of course, one would also like to see nested sequences, type classes and type equations... Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Na, Eric van der Vlist | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- w, Jirka Kosek |
Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Na, James Fuller | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- w, Jirka Kosek |
Month |
Keywords