This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Moving on, 1 to 1.1
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] Moving on, 1 to 1.1
- From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian dot rahtz at computing-services dot oxford dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:45:56 +0000
- References: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F4F03D7@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
DPawson@rnib.org.uk writes:
> 1. Once you have a processor you can trust, start all new stylesheets using
> 1.1 version?
you don't have to. only the stylesheet which uses 1.1 needs to declare
it as such. so you can have a 1.0 which imports a 1.1, and it
does what is expected
> 4. When a 1.1 processor is available, convert all old stylesheets from
> 1.0 to 1.1?
..
> Has anyone actually started to plan for this?
in practice, how many problems can you see? i find 3
- use of the output splitting. thats easy to pin down and isolate
- use of odd bits of Java extension. thats going to need some careful
work, but how widespread is it?
- the real one is seeing whether some bits of the stylesheet can now
be rewritten more elegantly using (what was) node-set(). that, I
think, is not so easy
surely it depends how carefully you have written your stylesheets? I
have always tried, for `public' stylesheets, to NOT use extensions,
and keep my usage of them to non-public, non-production occasions.
sebastian
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list