Subject: Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:36:42 +0100 |
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Trenda <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> writes: Scott> The point I'm trying to convey here is that rather than Scott> trying to shoehorn everything into XSLT 2.0 through the Scott> vendor's extension functions may not be the best way to go Scott> for most webserver tasks. Well, I think that IS the best way (like Andrew just said too). Although it doesn't necessarily have to be vendor-specific. In many cases there is an absolute standard (although implementation dependent) way of doing these things - that is xsl:result-document of fn:doc()/document() with the appropriate URI scheme. The implementation-dependent bit is whether or not a given implementation supports a given URI scheme. But both Saxon and Gestalt (at least) allow you to easily write handlers for additional schemes. So I think an appropriate way forward is to map out (on this list) the best way of approaching these things in a standard way, and then set up shared code repositories for any additional URI handlers necessary. When an extension function is necessary, then exslt used to be the appropriate forum. I certainly don't think an W3C additional language is necessary. Indeed it would be positively harmful in my opinion. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Scott Trenda | Thread | RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Houghton,Andrew |
Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, James A. Robinson | Date | RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Houghton,Andrew |
Month |