Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

Joshua Allen wrote:
> 
> Michael Kay said:
> > I would add to what James said, a reminder that XSLT 1.0 does not define
> > any notion of a stylesheet being "100% XSLT compliant". There are things
> 
> As someone who's invested quite a bit of energy running around giving
> developers talks on "writing portable XSLT", I will agree that even
> XSLT 1.0 is not guaranteed to be portable.  But most developers who
> I've talked to are surprised that "portable XSLT" is actually
> different from "XSLT 1.0".  So I hope we haven't given up on portable
> XSLT - sure there are warts, but this is version 1.0 right?  Surely
> nobody is suggesting that, since portability is not guaranteed
> in 1.0, we should just forget about it altogether?  Users really
> do care about portability, and I hope I haven't been wasting my time
> encouraging them..
> 
Agreed. Anyone interested in doing a "lint" style transform for checking
transform portability?

Francis.

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