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 20:56:04 -0700
- Organization: The Qub Group
- References: <200010230335.VAA42648@skew.org>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
> > 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.
>
> SAXON only started doing this with version 5.5, which is only a few weeks
> old. If you read the release notes you would see the reasoning behind it.
> It is 'anticipatory conformance' (anticipating XSLT 1.1) whereas when
> MSXML did it, it was 'irresponsible disregard for the recommended
> extension function interfaces' because at that time there was no hint that
> it would ever be accepted practice.
Great! This means this is not a bug in SAXON , but SAXON does
this on purpose! I'm very glad.
> My opinion is that if I write a stylesheet with version="1.0" then it is
> my job as a document author to not attempt to do anything that isn't
> allowed by XSLT 1.0. If I want to do a result tree fragment to node-set
> conversion, I need to use an extension function. If an XSLT processor
> wants to give me the option of not using an extension function on a "1.0"
> document, then the processor may not be 1.0 conformant, as 1.0 stands
> today. If XSLT 1.1 comes tomorrow and updates XSLT 1.0 the way HTTP/1.1
> did to HTTP/1.0, then there is no problem. Until then, I have not written
> a truly 1.0 conformant stylesheet, and I have no right to complain about
> conformance of any XSLT processor. :)
<xsl:stylesheet
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
xmlns:xt="http://www.jclark.com/xt"
version="1.0">
This was the header of my stylesheet. It says version="1.0".
This means SAXON already allows me to write XSLT 1.1
using version="1.0". Right?
This means stylesheets I write in SAXON are not portable.
( in the universe of version="1.0" )
To understand how this fits into entire picture of 'conformance'
and 'standards' is not for children like me.
I give up.
Rgds.Paul.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list