This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension elements )?
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension elements )?
- From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian dot rahtz at computing-services dot oxford dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:49:46 +0100 (BST)
- References: <C183CC073051D31184DA0008C707BBF00B0BD581@RED-MSG-41><14725.53871.769174.527424@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk><009901bffb27$f9095d20$5df5c13f@PaulTchistopolskii><14725.58876.761068.743280@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk><011001bffb69$cd5b16e0$5df5c13f@PaulTchistopolskii><14726.36614.402755.391176@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk><008a01bffbf3$840c8160$5df5c13f@PaulTchistopolskii>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
Paul Tchistopolskii writes:
> How much XSLT engines do we have? I think it is more
> than 10 ( and I'm sure there will be more ).
> Are you supporting all of them ?
If they are XSLT engines, its not a problem, is it? they'll all do
exactly the same thing with the same input.
> This pre-processor could be a 'hardcore' XSLT stylesheet.
> Why should you explain ? Just add one more line to the
> script.
what script? I dont have scripts.
> > in my setup, the really vital extension is multiple output files (in
> > HTML mode).
>
> Well - very bad. This is not a standard at all and it is
> suspicious to write a *portable* stylesheet using
> non-standard and for sure not portable extension
> elements.
right. thats my compromise. and my defence is that it is explicitly
tagged as a likely addition in the appendix to XSLT, and explicitly
mentioned as a likely contender for XSLT 1.1. I am gambling that it
will be standard in a year
> Much better is to use redirects ( every OS allows > )
I dont see the relevance, to be honest
> If you want to be portable, I think you should never
> use those <xt:document and alikes.
no, I shouldn't. But I have to. it really isn't plausible to build a
real system without such a functionality.
> > For the rest, I'll use node-set when it gets into
> > XSLT formally, but otherwise not in public.
>
> Don't understand this.
my TEI stylesheets dont use node-set, but my stylesheets for
gravestones do. why? cos anyone can use my TEI ones, but no-one else
will ever see my gravestone ones
> I don't know what is the name of this beast in SAXON , but I know
> that porting something polluted with extension elements
> is *much* harder than porting something polluted with extension
> functions.
sorry, I don't see why its *much* harder. if I isolate my use of
saxon:output to one named template, its no big deal to maintain and
port that.
> SAXON is MS of XSLT and I'm already having problems
> with that.
but where is your evidence of the widespread use of Saxon?
Sebastian
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list