Subject: Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension elements )? From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:49:46 +0100 (BST) |
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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Paul Tchistopolskii | Thread | Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Paul Tchistopolskii |
RE: include vs. xsl:import, Matthew Bentley | Date | RE: running msxml3 from command lin, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |