XSLT 2.0 Is Way Cool, by Micah Dubinko
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.