Re: [xsl] Is Saxon the *only* XSLT 2.0 engine?

[Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    >> Bit of a newbie question really, but is Saxon the only XSLT 2.0
    >> transformation engine available?

    Michael> There are two others, Colin Adams' Gestalt XSLT, and
    Michael> Altova's XSLT 2.0 processor.

    Michael> Saxon, of course, is the best.
  
Well, I can't let that go unchallenged.

If you want to write interactive scripts which invoke an XSLT 2.0
processor, then Saxon is a poor choice, as it's dependence upon the
Java VM means it is too slow for interactive use (*).
If you want to serialize to a web service, or other HTTP server, then
it is of no use at all to you, as HTTP writes don't work (*).
If you want to invoke XSLT 2.0 programmatically from a good
programming language (i.e. Eiffel), then it is far too difficult to
use Saxon (.NET version excepted, I guess).

Personally, these are the only scenarios in which I DO use XSLT, with
one big exception - I write a lot of XSLT for testing Gestalt. And
there I DO use Saxon, so I can compare results and performance.

I won't bother to list the all too numerous cases where Saxon IS the
best though - I don't have enough time in the day :-)

(*) I don't know about the .NET version.
-- 
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire