XSLT 2.0 Is Way Cool, by
Micah. Kimber. Pawson. A handful of the folks who have, like me,
turned up their nose at XSLT 2.0, are starting to reconsider. This is
not a massive drugging campaign by XSLT 2.0 boosters: it seems all these
folks still don't want anything to do with the oppressive type system of
XPath and XSLT 2.0, and all balk at the stupendous complexity of the
specifications. The key to me is that they see these specs as usable
without choking on the types mess. Some folks were claiming this was
possible 2 years ago or so, but when I checked, I wasn't convinced.
Perhaps things have improved since then.
So I may be up for reconsidering my shunning of XSLT 2.0, but as Micah
mentions, I'm not about to wade into 9 documents to work on
implementation. (OK, so it would really be 4 or so, but those are 4
huge documents, compared to the 1.0 series, which was 2 modestly sized
documents). If someone comes up with a coherent spec that omits the
type info, it could somehow make its way into the 4Suite post 1.0.
Micah says, "XSLT 2.0 is a power tool. I don't think it will displace
XSLT 1.0, which is remarkable for its power in a small package." For a
while I've wanted to write a series of comparisons between XSLT 2.0 and
Amara code (which includes
XPath 1.0 support). Amara is my power tool, for when XSLT 1.0 +
EXSLT is not enough, and I find it hard to
imagine XSLT 2.0 as offering more power.
And I really need to get back to work on EXSLT. Folks are getting
very restless with the fact that work on EXSLT has been fallow for most
of 2005. I just wish I could count on some help. Part of what impedes
me is a shrinking back from all the demands of the EXSLT community
without many offers of help.