Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (portability) From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:06:20 -0800 (PST) |
--- David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > do people want portable stylesheets for reasons of > virtue > (not that that's bad) or because they want to run > them, today, on more > than one engine. 1. Generally, I will try to use only the portable subset of XSLTs features, for reasons of laziness: I don't want to write several options for several implementations when something is specified only vaguely in the spec. Also, for all the defenitely specified features I can expect or request correct behaviour from implementations/implementors. 2. If the thing will run on only one processor, for example serverside, then I make sure to use only the sub-subset that the chosen one likes and knows, and code according to it's behaviours; if the XSLT should be able run through more than one implementation, because it will be used by others, I'll have to check it with for example the most popular implementations. (This step should be easier, because I restricted myself to portable code in the first place) That's my current strategy. Tobi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (portab, Joe English | Thread | [xsl] Transforming HTML to NITF, Adam Van Den Hoven |
RE: [xsl] Transforming HTML to NITF, Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] Re: Reliance on import preced, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |