RE: Microsoft's take on XSL

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Sebastian Rahtz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 4:24 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Microsoft's take on XSL
>
>
> Julian Reschke writes:
>  > on a similar question in microsoft.public.xml, I got:
>  >
> is it my imagination, or is this pure blather?
>
>  > > XSL syntax and interpretation issue.  There are also subtle
> things in the
>  > > XML language and in the DOM that will unlikely be fully
> compatible -- this
>  > > is due to ambiguity in the w3c specs and the fact that true 100%
>  > > cross-platform compatibility is never achievable anyway.
>
> what *are* they talking about? can someone sympathetic to them explain
> what the "ambiguities" in XML might be?

Actually, that needs to be investigated :-). MS, are you reading this??

>  > > The migration story for XSL is that we will continue to
> support the IE5.0
>  > > XSL namespace with the IE5 behavior and then we will also
> support the new
>  > > XSLT namespace with the XSLT defined behavior.  Arn't
> namespaces wonderful
>
> and this.  my style sheet says
>
>   xmlns:xsl='http://www.w3.org/XSL/Transform/1.0'

I think Microsoft examples have:

	xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl"

which should be ok...

> so my things start "<xsl:", just like Microsoft's do. are they saying
> that instead I will do
>
>   xmlns:xsl='http://microsoft.com/XSL/Transform/1.0'
>
> ??? I could understand it if they said i could do
>
>   xmlns:msxsl='http://microsoft.com/XSL/Transform/1.0'
>
> and then write
>
>  <msxsl:template>
>
> but presumably they *don't* mean that.

I still don't see the problem. XML itself does not know about XSL. The issue
is just in MSXML where (the draft) XSL is already built in. It seems that by
putting in the appropriate namespace declaration you can tell MSXML which
kind of XSL you want. That should be just fine, correct?


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