- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:01:55 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
The GRDDL document suggests that XSLT is the preferred language, because it is specifically designed for XML to XML transformations. I haven't tried, is there a reason that XQuery is not equally good for at least some classes of these transformations? Consider the following paragraph: > Developers of transformations should make available representations in > widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] > <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#XSLT1> is the format most widely > supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though > XSLT2[XSLT2] <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#XSLT2> deployment is > increasing. While technically Javascript, C, or virtually any other > programming language may be used to express transformations for GRDDL, > XSLT is specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations > and has some good safety characteristics. The W3C has produced two different native XML languages that both have good safety characteristics and can do XML to XML transformations. Is XQuery equally good for this? The string XQuery does not occur at all in this document, which seems odd considering the several discussions of what language choice is best for processing XML. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 15:03:23 UTC