March 13, 2005

Update on "XQuery 1.0 vs. XSLT 1.0" post..

I have received several good comments in both email and directly on this blog regarding my XQuery vs. XSLT 1.0 post from a few days ago. I've been away from my computer for the last 24 hours so I only just got to approving the most recent comment from Simon St. Laurent. He brought out a good point of which I wanted to make a little more public and then extend a few thoughts from. His comment:

[UPDATE: Dimitre Novatchev has followed-up Simon's comments with a very good point in that he doesn't know of one single case in which an XSLT developer has stated they plan to skip over XSLT 2.0 and move directly to XQuery. For what its worth, neither have I >> well, until just now when Simon stated this to be his intention. While Simon's point is still valid for those who have the same feelings he does I wonder how many others who have gone through the rough-and-tumble of learning XSLT 1.0 plan to move to XQuery once it becomes more readily supported. Anyone care to speak out?]

I think you're over-reacting pretty strangely. A lot of people are looking to move directly from XSLT 1.0 to XQuery, and I'm not sure that an XSLT 2.0 to XQuery comparison would be useful for that large case.

Apples to apples is great, if you actually care about both apples. If you don't, you don't.

I have a lot of respect for Simon and for his opinions so when Simon speaks I tend to listen. In thinking through his comment it really made a lot of sense. The problem that I have that caused such a strange reaction with the article that J. David Eisenberg posted was not that his points were not valid but that they completely ignored the fact that much of what he was refering to was no longer an issue when put into context with XSLT 2.0. But if your opinion is along the same line as Simon's then simply stating "while XSLT 2.0 is well on it way to a W3C recommendation XQuery brings several things to the development table that can make your development life a little less complicated, verbose, and extend from more of a procedural style syntax that a lot of us are more used to" will get absolutely nothing but applause from me.

To J. David Eisenberg's credit he has followed-up and it seems is taking the time to consider the comments made, working through them with a good attitude. Thats always a good thing to see so I think its best at this point that I simply let things be and hope that the attention thus far has been enough to help refocus the ideas presented into proper context. Armed with proper positioning and if you are one in whom is looking forward to working with XQuery as an XSLT 1.0 replacement, making no plans to use XSLT 2.0 it seems then you will be able to walk away with some good information to draw from.