W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2002

xslt2 complexity

From: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 04:49:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F024A759D@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
<quote src='xslt-list-mailer'>
Personally, I've been hesitating for close to year about 
whether moving from DTDs to Schemas really buys me anything. 
It's obviously more consistent, has some really nice mechanism 
for 'specialization' and a few (read that as less than 6) 
data types that could be useful in a minor way. 

But the cost is pretty steep. The language is longer and more complex. 
Plus, I have to use namespaces even if I don't need them. And Schemas 
completely ignored the issue of entity declarations for characters 
or strings within the local document which is a *big* deal 
for people on the document side. This does not add up to 
"the cornerstone of XML technology" in my book.

So, if I don't move to schemas which is likely, what has 
the wait for XSLT 2.0 bought me? Over a year's worth of wait 
for functionality that was proposed for version 1.1, based 
on real implementation issues from the user community, to 
make 2.0 compatible with Schemas which I don't need. And 
a very clear addition of complexity (compare the number of 
pages in the specs) that again doesn't buy me much. 
</quote>

This expresses quite succinctly my feelings.
I was initially interested as a development of DTD's
but I really can't find either
a) A use
b) the tools
c) the incentive to move from DTD's to schema.

The second para, asking what has been gained by the wait,
is also a good summary. The support for schema in the XSLT
list appears minimal on the mulberrytech list, its benefits
are minimal in the world of XSLT for a large majority,

I'm questioning the benefit of the increased complexity
on both implementor and end user. The sense of the comments
on the XSLT list appear to support 
a)The lack of delivery of the feature set 'demanded' by end users.
b)The purpose of schema support when so little is gained.

Is it a case of the WG running wild with what could be done?

The goal was to <quote>Simplify manipulation of XML Schema-typed content
</quote>
and <quote>Improve ease of use </quote>
The way the document is approaching epic proportions, it would
appear these goals will not be met.



Regards DaveP
AC RNIB.





************snip here************** 

- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 

14th June 2002 is RNIB Look Loud Day - visit http://www.lookloud.org.uk to
find out all about it.
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 16:36:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:22 GMT