Subject: Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension elements )? From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:38:28 -0700 |
> > When you need multiple outputs, invoke multiple > > stylesheets. Write a script. > > I have 2500 gravestone records. I want each one in a separate > file. you want I should run the stylesheet 2500 times? Produce one large file and then split it into 2500 files with trivial perl script. Ah, again , for some reason ( religion? ) you want to do everything in "plain XSLT" ( but still using the hack which is not in XSLT standard ;-). I give up. I simply don't understand what are you doing and why are you doing that. > > Yep. That's why "portable XSLT" looks impossible to me. > until XSLT 1.1 adds that functionality.... I have no stock and I'm not participating in any gambling. Gotta know the estimate for XSLT 1.1 ? I think at that point of time we could be using some different XSLT engines ;-) > > And when you have saxon:evaluate it is hard to resists using it ;-) > > i have never even been tempted, let alone inhaled. but then my usage > of XSLT is naive. I'm of course also not using it ( XT has no such beast ), but sometimes I miss it. For example writing grep in SAXON is trivial because of this feature. Grep in Ux ( XT ) was very much hacking ( generate the stylesheet and execute it on the fly ) ... But as a result - Ux's grep it is more portable than if it will be written with saxon:evaluate ;-) Rgds.Paul. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Paul Tchistopolskii |
Re: Standard XPath expression for t, Wendell Piez | Date | RE: Standard XPath expression for t, Wendell Piez |
Month |