Subject: Re: [xsl] Elements and functions available From: "Jesper Tverskov" <jesper@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:26:38 +0200 |
Colin Paul Adams wrote: "Your inclusion of extension functions and instructions for saxon and not for other processors though, is silly. You should either include extensions for all processors known to you, or none at all." - - - I would like to include all extensions in all XSLT processors but my stylesheet doesn't work in surprisingly many XSLT 1.0 processors not even in Saxon 6.5.5 due to the way they have implemented element-available() and function-available(), leaving most of the relevant additional sets of extensions out of reach. I do plan to improve the stylesheet to make it easier to add tests for additional sets of extensions. I am not sure if it is possible to make a transformation and then make a nice TOC for the output document in the output document in XSLT 1.0. But I could to that for XSLT 2.0 processors. I know it is a little silly to include Saxon's extensions also in reports for non-Saxon processors but at least I do it with some arguments: "Saxon's extensions are not necessarily relevant for Saxon only. If you use another XSLT processor, it can be nice to know what extensions are available in the trendsetting Saxon XSLT 2.0 processor. It can give you a hint for what to look or ask for in the XSLT processor you use. If some new XSLT 2.0 processor needs extensions, why not implement Saxon's?" Jesper Tverskov http://www.xmlplease.com/elements-functions
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Elements and functions av, Colin Paul Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] Elements and functions av, Michael Ludwig |
Re: [xsl] Advice for XSL developmen, Martin Honnen | Date | Re: [xsl] Identifier attribute (was, Rowan Sylvester-Brad |
Month |