RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Identifying two tags...")

[sara dot mitchell at ps dot ge dot com]

Stuart, 

You make a very good case about the use of XML within 
programming. What many who come from the programming 
and data modelling side miss is that XML (and SGML 
before it) have been used for *years* by people who 
are not programmers or database experts and don't need 
the strict typing that XML Schemas provide or the SQL-similar
querying that the XQuery folks want. 

[snipped from Stuart Celarier, Monday, May 13, 2002 10:32 AM]
> Returning to your observation, "the dependency on the complexities of
> XML Schema gives me precious little benefit, compared with the
> headaches...", I am trying to make the case that the benefit of the
> specification making use of PSVI is that XSLT implementers can program
> to that requirement and thus produce XSLT processors that are
> interchangeable. To specify otherwise would let XSLT 
> processor behavior
> diverge, which would spell chaos. Count that as a big benefit to you.
> 
> XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 became W3C Recommendations in November 
> 1999. XML
> Schema became a Recommendation in May 2001. That explains why XSLT 1.0
> makes no reference to Schemas or the PSVI. But with XML Schema now in
> place as a cornerstone of XML technology, it is important to make the
> XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 specifications consistent with the XML Schema.
> 
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. 

I realize that I am a minority. But I was a considered minority  
in the user world for XML 1.0. It's call for simplicity was partially 
about people like me. And the complexity that is creeping up
within XML, XSLT, and XPath concerns me also. 

Sara Mitchell

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list