Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL)

Subject: Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL)
From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:17:27 -0700
> > Going back to your original question - "which processor should I use in a
> > production environment?"... if you are most interested in conforming to the
> > spec, then MSXML3 and SAXON are the only two products which currently
> > conform.
> 
> Excuse me.  On what exactly do you base this assertion?  4XSLT 
> (http://fourthought.com/4Suite) also conforms, and I understand that Xalan 1.0 
> does as well.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were others that do.

After I realized that SAXON ( which is very good 
engine) makes hidden RTF->node-set typecast 
( the thing MS were blamed for ),  I feel not 
comfortable when somebody says 
'conformant XSLT engine'  in public place.

See the stylesheet from the letter:
 "Conformance. SAXON & XT"

I mean you can be implementing 100% of the functions, 
but how conformant are you ?

Again, my assumption is that  XT is conformant, 
asking for explicit node-set typecast. 

Because I don't understand why the distinction between 
node-set and RTF have jumped into the draft 
( and so far no rationale was given ) I'm assuming that 
the editor of the XSLT draft ( who is also author of XT ) 
knows better.

This could be bug in XT, of course. But if not - 
SAXON is not conformant. 

If it is not a bug in XT and your engine does
something other than rejecting the stylesheet - 
your engine is also not conformant.  Right? 

I think all vendors who are claming 100% conformance 
to the XSLT paper really meant : "we *think*  we are 
100% conformant - we have not bother to make sure".

Rgds.Paul.




 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread