265248 - support exslt:math

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Core :: XSLT, enhancement)

Description

[Bruce Rindahl]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Build Identifier: 

Enhancement to XSLT using guidelines from EXSLT.  Math extensions allow more 
powerful manipulation in XSLT until XSLT 2.0 is finalized and implemented.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 2

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.

Comment 3

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Bug 363789 implemented the max, min, highest and lowest functions. Which other functions do people feel would be useful?

Comment 4

[Bruce Rindahl]

I have a GIS coordinate conversion stylesheet that uses:
sqrt
cos
sin
tan
log
exp
This is why I asked for it originally.  If you are at this point it would be nice just to do all 18 functions and say you are EXSLT compliant.
Thanks for the work on this!
Bruce

Comment 5

[Jean-André Santoni]

Attachment: Proposed patch

Comment 6

[Jean-André Santoni]

Attachment: Test files, xml+xslt

Comment 7

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Peter: How do you feel about this. Given how little XSLT is used, and how very little these functions will get used, I don't know how I feel about adding this stuff since it means adding more code that we'll have to maintain for a long time.

I'm ok either way.

Comment 8

[Bruce Rindahl]

For what it's worth, I am the original poster.  In my work I still rely heavily on exslt/xslt but due to limited implementations in browsers I rely exclusively on server side transforms.  I am happy with dropping it.

Comment 9

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Ah, actually cc'ing Peter might make it easier to get him to see the question :-)

Comment 10

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

I'd actually rather not do this. First of all I think the javascript bridge is at-risk of getting removed at some point, so I'd rather not add more dependencies to it. Second, I'm really not convinced that XSLT is used enough to add more features to it, no matter how easy it is to add those features, since it means that we'll have to maintain them forever.

Comment 11

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Comment on attachment 414291 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed patch

Clearing request for now until we have more clarity in if we really want to do this.


For what it's worth, the more I think about this, the more I suspect that the right answer is to not add support for further XSLT features. Client-side XSLT hasn't been a smashing success and it seems like adding more code to it at this point doesn't really get us a lot. Especially when the added features are mozilla-specific.

I think the strongest argument for getting this landed would be if you can get commitment from a couple of more major browser vendors that they are willing to land support for the same feature.