Re: [xsl] N : M transformation

Subject: Re: [xsl] N : M transformation
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:47:29 GMT
> If I rely on a draft, and wait for a standard (rec), then rely on 
> standards, I automatically support any XSLT processor; first in a shaky 
> way (draft), then in a stable way.

In general I'd agree although in the case of xslt I'm not sure how many
of the current implementors are planning to do an XSLT2. Most have been
quite quiet on the subject.

I'd expect it to be some years before an XSLT2 stylesheet is as
portable as an XSLT1 one that's using just node set and multiple output
extensions. (I'd be happy to be proved wrong here.)

> Anyways, the lack of support for multiple output documents in XSLT 1.0 
> leaves us all in a situation where one workaround is +/- as bad as the 
> other,

well yes:-)

> so luckily, XSLT 2.0 is not far away.

we'll see, XSLT 1.1 didn't seem far away at one time either,
or HTML 3.0.

> > (It gets worse the more attrubute of saxon:output that you used,
>None; I currently use

well the same applies there, if you switch from xslt 1.1's document
element to a named template you have to pay the same price of the
xsl:with-param verbosity to pass the values down.


This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread