Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension e

Paul Tchistopolskii writes:
 > > more to the point, I want to distribute my TEI stylesheets so that
 > > they'll be useable by any processor (to the best of its ability)
 > > without any further ado. 
 > 
 > Sounds like very exciting occupation. I'l be glad to know 
 > how far will you get ( I gave up long time ago because 
 > of extensions ). 

I would not say it is my "occupation". perhaps my pleasure.

 > Maybe what you meant to say is  "useable by some number 
 > ( 4? ) of XSLT processors" ?
more like 7 ?

 > Honestly - the simplest workaround I see is 
 > to write 'extremely portable XSLT-stylesheets'  
 > ( I think this task is a bit hypotetical, but whatever ) 
 > is to write them not in XSLT, but to use the 
 > preprocessor. 

but then I have to distribute the pre-processor, and explain how to
use it.  I agree it would be sensible, but it would be been better if
I could avoid  it.

in my setup, the really vital extension is multiple output files (in
HTML mode). I just cannot do any good without that (unless I used pre
or post splitting). For the rest, I'll use node-set when it gets into
XSLT formally, but otherwise not in public.

 > BTW.  I see some other problem  here. ;-) The problem is "SAXON is 
 > MS of XSLT" ;-) People are already  building  on top of SAXON's extensions 
 > and this kills almost any way to port their stylesheets to any
 > other processor.

I know what you mean, but do you see a lot of evidence that the
practice is so prevalent? Personally, I find it fairly easy to steer
clear of temptation. And lets be clear that Mike Kay does not
*promote* such a thing - so far as I can see, he simply finds it
interesting to investigate and implement possible extensions to XSLT,
and its a good service to the community to be able to play with them. 

Sebastian


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