Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (portability) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:43:37 GMT |
> 3) No substitute for testing on multiple processors which relates to a question I was going to ask about what do people mean by a portable stylesheet. One that doesn't use features of XSLT declared to be system independent or One that works uniformly on the XSL engines you have available. For example, as a general rule I use xt or saxon or msxml3 (in that order) I don't really know why i use xt out of preference except habit and it takes less keystrokes, But for me, a portable stylesheet doesn't use keys doesn't use any fancy java extensions (but can use some built in ones like multiple output files and node-set()) and doesn't rely on text nodes working as advertised in the presence of CDATA markup. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp 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 (portab, Sebastian Rahtz |
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, David Carlisle | Date | [xsl] XSLT 2.0 Grouping Use Cases, Steve Muench |
Month |