RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

[Adam Van Den Hoven <Adam.Hoven@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James Clark :
> Adam Van Den Hoven wrote:
>  
> > If I write a document that I can say is 100% XSLT
> > compliant, then I demand that when I use that document in a 
> processor that
> > is 100% compliant the resulting output is exactly as I have 
> specified.
> 
> This is not the case in XSLT 1.0.  For example:
> 
> - Stylesheets that use extensions (whether extension functions or
> extension elements) are 100% XSLT compliant, but there is not 
> guarantee
> that a processor will be able to handle them.

Those extensions do not belong to XSLT namespace. If I decide to use them
then I have knowingly tied myself to a specific flavour of parser. I can
live with that.

If I use tags that are not in the XSL namespace then its not 100% xsl is it.
its XSL + saxon extensions. Its still valid XSL but its not 100% pure BC
grown XSL. 

> - XSLT 1.0 also allows extension of output methods and sorting
> datatypes, which are not guaranteed to be supported.

But aren't these in a different namespace or somehow separate from xslt?

> - XSLT 1.0 processors are not required to support
> disable-output-escaping.

Personally, I hate it when a standard says I can use something but doesn't
guarantee that it will be implemented. These things should be avoided when
ever possible.

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