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 18:17:27 -0700
- Organization: The Qub Group
- References: <200010222017.OAA25156@localhost.localdomain>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
> > Going back to your original question - "which processor should I use in a
> > production environment?"... if you are most interested in conforming to the
> > spec, then MSXML3 and SAXON are the only two products which currently
> > conform.
>
> Excuse me. On what exactly do you base this assertion? 4XSLT
> (http://fourthought.com/4Suite) also conforms, and I understand that Xalan 1.0
> does as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others that do.
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.
See the stylesheet from the letter:
"Conformance. SAXON & XT"
I mean you can be implementing 100% of the functions,
but how conformant are you ?
Again, my assumption is that XT is conformant,
asking for explicit node-set typecast.
Because I don't understand why the distinction between
node-set and RTF have jumped into the draft
( and so far no rationale was given ) I'm assuming that
the editor of the XSLT draft ( who is also author of XT )
knows better.
This could be bug in XT, of course. But if not -
SAXON is not conformant.
If it is not a bug in XT and your engine does
something other than rejecting the stylesheet -
your engine is also not conformant. Right?
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".
Rgds.Paul.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list