Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension elements )?

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  ;-)


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread