list4xt : Mailing list for the XT users community.
[list4xt] Re: Announce on xsl-list
Subject: [list4xt] Re: Announce on xsl-list
User: Website From: senthil@portal.com
Date: 02/06/2000 - 21:21
Well, it is not a trivial task if you are programmatically
accessing XT's nits and come to depend on it being maintained..
A quick disclaimer at the start of developing xt would have
helped people who had to stand by their stuff long term..
I agree with you, people who are starting out now, might be
better of using other processors..
-senthil
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:rtenhove@forte.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 11:14 AM
To: list4xt@4xt.org
Subject: [list4xt] Re: Announce on xsl-list
<devils-advocate>
In an ideal world, XSLT processors ought to be interchangeable. While
the XSLT PR was changing, XT was more current than other available
processors. Now that the PR has been finalised for over half a year,
that "ideal world" situation ought to be materialising.
XT is no longer the leader when it comes to conformance to the PR.
XT is likely to lose its position as performance leader in the Java-
based XSLT processor world soon, if it hasn't already.
If there are conforming processors available elsewhere, why bother with
maintaining yet-another-XSLT-processor? Why bother keeping XT alive
when I can use Saxon (for example)?
</devils-advocate>
In a nutshell, what is the case for keeping XT alive?
As for Mr Clark, I don't believe he has any obligation to keep a now
unneeded artifact of the standardisation process alive, since the
standard is complete. We will all benefit more greatly if he goes
on to the next "great thing", rather than waste time on testing an
already released standard.
It is up to us, the XT community, to articulate a case for keeping XT
alive, and, assuming the case can be made, find a practical way
accomplish this. We seem to currently be doing things in the wrong
order -- first we need to make the case, not set up CVS repositories!
Another necessary condition before we can proceed is to get Mr Clark's
blessing, otherwise we will not be taken seriously.
Or perhaps its time to look at creating "XT mark II", architected and
implemented in a way that reflects the lessons learned from XT's strengths
and weaknesses?
My two centi-dollars,
-Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: list4xt-bounce@4xt.org [mailto:list4xt-bounce@4xt.org]On Behalf Of
senthil@portal.com
Sent: June 2, 2000 10:25
To: list4xt@4xt.org
Subject: [list4xt] Re: Announce on xsl-list
Well, this is quite sad.. From a independent developer standpoint, I
understand James C. somewhat, but if the goal is to have this as a test
bed for refining the specs then necessary disclaimers should bave been
communicated, I think it should be published at the
least and users expectations should have been set correctly. I don't see
any difference, whether it is open source or paid for source, once
it is out in the public use (free or otherwise), ownership and
accountability needs to be there..
I would be hesitant to touch the next test bed software JC writes for
his next invention and teases the public with it. Nuf said..
Regards,
-senthil
--
Mailing list for the XT users community. (http://ilcollectorsassoc.org)
(mailto:list4xt-request@4xt.org?Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe)
--
Mailing list for the XT users community. (http://superglossary.com)
(mailto:list4xt-request@4xt.org?Subject=unsubscribe to unsubscribe)
Archive générée par hypermail 2b28 le 06/11/2001 - 11:46 CET
webmaster@4xt.org
|