This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL)
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL)
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul at qub dot com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:47:38 -0700
- Organization: The Qub Group
- References: <200010230233.UAA25709@localhost.localdomain>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
----- Original Message -----
From: <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
> > After I realized that SAXON ( which is very good
> > engine) makes hidden RTF->node-set typecast
> > ( the thing MS were blamed for ), I feel not
> > comfortable when somebody says
> > 'conformant XSLT engine' in public place.
>
> "conforming" to a spec that does not have an official conformance test suite
> basically means "We have not come across any non-conformance in our testing,
> or had any reported that are not scheduled for priority fixing".
> I think this is fair statement, and that you needn't take it as meaning more.
Exactly. That was my point.
> > I think all vendors who are claming 100% conformance
> > to the XSLT paper really meant : "we *think* we are
> > 100% conformant - we have not bother to make sure".
>
> You'll have to point out the "vendors" claiming "100% conformance" more
> accurately, because I have not seen that claim on this list.
I've seen something on xmlhack.com or somewhere.
Don't remember.
I'm not blaming vendors. I'm trying to notify users who are
trying to judge XSLT taking conformance into account.
Sorry for not accurate wording.
Rgds.Paul.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list