[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
I think, that the new xsl:evaluate instruction is the most harmful addition, as
it either rules out the idea of compilation of xslt in native/IL/other language
code, or demands for interpreter or compiler to be available at
stylesheet execution time.
This makes execution environment much more heavier than necessary.
[xsl] Re: First public working draft of XSLT 2.1
Subject: [xsl] Re: First public working draft of XSLT 2.1 From: "Vladimir Nesterovsky" <vladimir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 08:05:59 +0300 |
I think, that the new xsl:evaluate instruction is the most harmful addition, as
it either rules out the idea of compilation of xslt in native/IL/other language
code, or demands for interpreter or compiler to be available at
stylesheet execution time.
This makes execution environment much more heavier than necessary.
But probably the worst effect will be from developers who will widely practice the "easiest" way to achieve desired effect with dynamic xpath.
On the other hand indirect function calls introduced in xpath 2.1 give enough power to model dynamic flexibility, if required. -- Vladimir Nesterovsky http://www.nesterovsky-bros.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] First public working draf, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: First public working , ac |
Re: [xsl] Cannot use a parameter va, Peter Desjardins | Date | Re: [xsl] Re: First public working , ac |
Month |