Subject: Re: [xsl] Is Saxon the *only* XSLT 2.0 engine? From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 14 Apr 2006 08:38:07 +0100 |
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Bit of a newbie question really, but is Saxon the only XSLT 2.0 >> transformation engine available? Michael> There are two others, Colin Adams' Gestalt XSLT, and Michael> Altova's XSLT 2.0 processor. Michael> Saxon, of course, is the best. Well, I can't let that go unchallenged. If you want to write interactive scripts which invoke an XSLT 2.0 processor, then Saxon is a poor choice, as it's dependence upon the Java VM means it is too slow for interactive use (*). If you want to serialize to a web service, or other HTTP server, then it is of no use at all to you, as HTTP writes don't work (*). If you want to invoke XSLT 2.0 programmatically from a good programming language (i.e. Eiffel), then it is far too difficult to use Saxon (.NET version excepted, I guess). Personally, these are the only scenarios in which I DO use XSLT, with one big exception - I write a lot of XSLT for testing Gestalt. And there I DO use Saxon, so I can compare results and performance. I won't bother to list the all too numerous cases where Saxon IS the best though - I don't have enough time in the day :-) (*) I don't know about the .NET version. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Is Saxon the *only* XSLT , Weston, Toby | Thread | Re: [xsl] Is Saxon the *only* XSLT , Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] Determining the context n, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: [xsl] Getting a specific elemen, M. David Peterson |
Month |