Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:48:53 -0000 |
David Carlisle > ah, so that's the criterion, only extensions that you've used > should be > let in:-) I can only put forward my own views David. > > > Its the idea of any non xsl vocab inside my stylesheet that I > > object to. > > I don't really think there is much special about the distinction of > being in the same file. If it's some script inside an msxml:script > element or an extension function accessed via a java: URI pointing at > some class that is hopefully on my java classpath, the effect is the > same: it will either work or it won't depending on circumstances. > So I don't see stylesheets using msxml:script as any less > portable than > an xsl 1.0 stylesheet using the XSL engine's current java binding to > an extension function. Agreed. I said I make use of saxon:line-number() at my own risk. Just as we both do for yyy:node-set() Some risks we accept. Regards DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Peter Flynn |
[xsl] A template selection for a ch, Kevin Duffey | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench |
Month |