On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:07:25 +0100, BURGHARD Éric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi everybody, > > I'm a little disapointed by all theses xml languages we can found around > which nearly all do the same things. > > 1) Last time i wanted to construct a project with maven and i found jelly. > it had a rich tag library, handle jexl expressions, and can handle xpath > through tag's libraries. But, as maven users, you all know that. > > So my question (naïve), is why not using jelly (jelly generator) instead of > redo the work with jxtemplate. I wonder why using ant mutant anteater too, > because IMHO testing with ant+jelly+junit+http(client) is much more > powerfull (multipart post, upload file, ...). And we could certainly define > a new tag library (macros) and run the anteater scripts "as is" with jelly. > > 2) I play last time with saxon8 and xpath/xslt2.0. I found that it looks > much more like a programming language than ever (well it's still xml). I > like the simplified stylesheet syntax, which allow you to mix the document > and the stylesheet into one document (like jx). > > So is there any plan to add an xslt2.0 generator. Think about a generator > which add some context variables (like $cocoon), or give access to > protocols (like cocoon:/) inside in your template.
You can already do more-or-less exactly that: just aggregate some generators (like the request generator) and feed them to Saxon 8 (though we use Saxon 7) as a transformer step to apply whatever transforms you want. If you want to use XSLT 2 then use it. What many people seem to want is a template language other than XSLT. Personally, I agree that that seems to be re-inventing the wheel, but open source communities seem to like constant mutant evolution... -- Peter Hunsberger
