On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:52:02 -0600, Andrew Welch
<andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2008/7/30 M. David Peterson <m.david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Surely the Oracle
processor can't be that bad??
Well, if you think of it in terms of attempting to run an XSLT 2.0
transformation that conforms to the 23rd of January 2007 W3C
recommendation against Saxon 7.x (which is about the time frame that the
Oracle XSLT 2.0 processor was first introduced) then it's not about being
a bad implementation and instead an implementation that was built at a
time when the specification was in a constant state of
flux/improvement/etc. In other words, this shouldn't be seen as anything
negative against Oracle as far as being a non-standards compliant XSLT 2.0
processor.
I haven't had time to test it properly
yet, so it may not be the case (apologies to Oracle if I'm talking
rubbish!) Maybe someone else has the time and inclination...
I wouldn't even bother. As far as I know (and someone please correct me
if I'm wrong) there isn't anything you get with the Java-based Oracle XSLT
2.0 processor that you don't get with Saxon, and yet you certainly get a
lot more from Saxon (as far as
standards-compliance/support/extensions/etc) than you will with the Oracle
processor.
The code I'm working on is an intertwined birds nest of call templates
with heavy use of extension functions :-/ Getting it to a debuggable
state and then stepping through it is mind numbing.
OxygenXML + Oxygen XSLT Debugger + Saxon 9.x (SA preferably) ==
*HAPPINESS* :D
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC
Email: m.david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | m.david@xxxxxx
Mobile: (206) 999-0588
http://3rdandUrban.com | http://amp.fm |
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |
http://news.oreilly.com/m-david-peterson/