Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:16:57 +0000 |
Joshua Allen wrote: > > Michael Kay said: > > I would add to what James said, a reminder that XSLT 1.0 does not define > > any notion of a stylesheet being "100% XSLT compliant". There are things > > As someone who's invested quite a bit of energy running around giving > developers talks on "writing portable XSLT", I will agree that even > XSLT 1.0 is not guaranteed to be portable. But most developers who > I've talked to are surprised that "portable XSLT" is actually > different from "XSLT 1.0". So I hope we haven't given up on portable > XSLT - sure there are warts, but this is version 1.0 right? Surely > nobody is suggesting that, since portability is not guaranteed > in 1.0, we should just forget about it altogether? Users really > do care about portability, and I hope I haven't been wasting my time > encouraging them.. > Agreed. Anyone interested in doing a "lint" style transform for checking transform portability? Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Joshua Allen | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] Reliance on import preced, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl:include still a probl, David Carlisle |
Month |