Subject: Re: [xsl] reliability of MSXML From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:22:01 +0100 |
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:12:22AM -0000, Michael Kay wrote: > > Okay, I apologize to Mike for the harsh wording. > > No apology needed. I'm fully aware that I made some design decisions which, > with hindsight, have proved wrong and have caused the community some > portability problems. Question: what's the best way to try to get rid of the problem (or at least make it easier to handle) ? I didn't follow XSLT development lately, is the NodeSet/ResultValueTree difference garanteed to disapear in 2.0 ? That would be a good indication. Maybe the XSL WG chairs would agree on getting this information out, possibly after consulting the group. I assume SAXON has completely unified the two notions and so this would requires a lot of code rewrite to (re)implement the distinction, even to simply raise a warning ... Hum, the issue is not simple, Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] reliability of MSXML, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] reliability of MSXML, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] progress towards 2.0 (was, Kevin Jones | Date | [xsl] Re: PHP integration with XSLT, dfour |
Month |