Subject: Re: [xsl] reliability of MSXML From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:46:30 GMT |
> A little strong, I think. David already pointed out that the 1.1 > draft is worded such that to emit a warning would in fact be a > non-conformance. Although I do in fact agree with Daniel that having a widely distributed processor that implements 1.1 rather than 1.0 by default is a real pain. Given the choice, I'd rather have conformance to a rec and non conformance to a withdrawn working draft than the other way round. Having just spent a few hours trying to get a few thousand lines of stylesheet (written by someone else) that was working on saxon to work in MSXML by removing all the hidden 1.1 dependencies, I know how the original poster feels. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] reliability of MSXML, Trevor Nash | Thread | Re: [xsl] reliability of MSXML, Daniel Veillard |
Re: [xsl] Ancestors, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] Ancestors, Carmelo Montanez |
Month |