Subject: Re: [xsl] Elements and functions available From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:48:00 -0700 |
> I would like to include all extensions in all XSLT processors but my Probably you may be interested to know about existing EXSLT support for Microsoft XSLT processors: 1. EXSLT.NET. Developed by Dare Obasanjo, Oleg Tkachenko and some parts by me, later taken under the MVPXML project: http://www.codeplex.com/MVPXML/Wiki/View.aspx?title=EXSLT.NET&referringTitle=Home 2. EXSLT for MSXML4. See the original 3003 XML.com article at: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/08/06/exslt.html 3. EXSLT for MSXML6 (the above patched to work with MSXML6). Patch submitted by Moriyoshi Koizumi: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1880582&group_id=53841&atid=471781 -- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- Never fight an inanimate object ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Jesper Tverskov <jesper@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 | [xsl] Group on deep equal criterion, Vladimir Nesterovsky |
RE: [xsl] my node position within a, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] my node position within a, Syd Bauman |
Month |