Subject: RE: XSLT 2 backwards compatibility (wsd: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML-Tables with row-span / col-span) From: "Andrew Welch" <AWelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:46:49 -0000 |
> I think most of us have control of our target environments, so > portability comes last compared to functionality, performance and > maintainability. > > Ah maybe that's the main difference. Not sure if its my TeX > background, but I place portability above all three of those. > the reason I want to write code in a standard language is > that I know wat happens when someone else runs it in some > other place. I don't really care if there is a non-portable > extension that makes it go ten times as fast. I might (but > probably wouldn't) use it in private projects but I wouldn't > use it in code that's freely distributed. Ok I will plays devils advocate here... 1. xslt that runs on the client needs to be portable, because there is no control over the client environment - however, its likely to be IE with msxml until the others catch up. Msxml doesn't support xslt 2.0, and Ive heard there's no plans to support it, so the backwards compatibility issues wont apply here. 2. xslt that runs on the server / within an app doesn't need to be portable, as there is control over the target environment. In this situation a 10x improvement in performace is definitely preferred over portability. Should the need arise to change processors, it does take that much work to alter the processor specific stuff. 3. If your xslt is freely distributed, and the processor it runs on is freely distributed, wheres the problem! Its all free, and it runs 10x as fast :) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: XSLT 2 backwards compatibility , Wendell Piez |
Re: [xsl] xhtml -> xsl:fo transform, scott gabelhart | Date | RE: [xsl] Following-Sibling, Schreifels, Mark J. |
Month |