Re: Netscape Support for XSL - client vs server rant

Matt Sergeant wrote:

> > I'll go out on a limb here, and (to mix my metaphors) will probably be
> > shot down in flames, but it could be said that the concentration we see
> > on server-based solutions is not just making up for the dodgy support
> > currently available in client browsers, but actually reactionary against
> > the fact that the MS integrated model is actually a Good Thing [TM] and
> > some folk are loathe to admit it.
>
> It's not reactionary at all - but in fact a stepping stone. Certainly
> AxKit is. Sadly Cocoon is broken by default in this respect, but that's
> another matter. With AxKit I explicitly have given developers the chance
> of writing a "Passthru" plugin, so that they can detect browsers which are
> XSL aware and send pure XML. For people not so lucky the plugin doesn't
> activite it's passthru flag and they get XML transformed on the server.

Excuse me for being an e-diot, but what do you mean by "Cocoon is broken by
default..."?
Especially since the next line is; "I explicitly have given the developers
the chance of writing a PassThru plugin..."

First; "Passthru" is easily takencare of with three lines of XSL code. No?
Also, You can in Cocoon define a non-processing pipeline, without coding.

Secondly; If Cocoon requires the 'developer' to write a plugin, it is broken
by default, while AxKit has that particular 'feature' ??

I don't get your reasoning and hostility towards Cocoon, which in my oppinion
is a product with real ambitious goals, and not a tinker toy.

Niclas


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