Re: Saxon VS XT

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul at qub dot com>]

From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen

> > Not implementing key() is almost not a limitation.
> > Most of developers will never ever use key()
> > because they'll never ever understand how to use
> > this function. ( Same  is about document() with
> > 2 parameters ).
>
> Eventually we will, when we have the concept described well enough --
> especially since the speed improvement is so big.

No doubt  *you*  will. I'm talking about 'most of developers'.
'most of developers'  are not subscribed to this list
( even they are already using XSLT ).

> Not using key, is like having to use Perl
> (or any other programming language) without being allowed
> to use hash tables for lookup purposes.

Poor C, ( and Pascal )  they  had no build-in hashtable support.

>
> Use XT if it fits your purpose, but please do not use argumentation
> like the above since it puts all of us down.

Nice try.  This sounds that   you are saying that I'm talking nonsense
because I'm not politically correct ? There is no defense against
such ( political ) argumentation and I'l not try ( I"m tired ).

I'l of course stop this thread now.

Those who still think that

"XT has many limitations because it is not 100% conformant
but conformant engines have no limitations because they are
conformant"  ( to me the only possible argumentation  is key()
and as I already wrote to Sebastian privately - I need at least
2 weeks to implement my model of processing his XML
real-life data without key() ).

Those lost souls who still think that storing massive volumes of
data in the format of huge text files and then use key() hack to
'improve the speed of processing' - is reasonable usage of
computers - I can not help them ;-)

Rgds.Paul.



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