RE: XSLT 1.1 comments

... I agree intensely with all the below.

Tobi

--- Adam Van Den Hoven <Adam.Hoven@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I'm not sure the problem lies with those who are
> implementing XSLT 1.1
> processors. The problem exists for those of us who
> are using XSLT to produce
> transformation documents. If I write a document that
> I can say is 100% XSLT
> compliant, then I demand that when I use that
> document in a processor that
> is 100% compliant the resulting output is exactly as
> I have specified. With
> xsl:script, this is not possible. Because
> implementors are not guaranteed to
> implement the xsl:script tag in a consistent way (if
> at all), I have no
> guaranted that my XSLT document is going to generate
> the correct
> transformations. 
> 
> Where this becomes a big issue is with client side
> transformations. One of
> the big promises of the XML revolution was that I'd
> be able to send a client
> (web browser, PDA, cell phone, ...) one transform
> document and several data
> document and allow the client to do the
> transoformation. Now, I expect to
> have to produce different transforms for specific
> target clients. However, I
> have no realistic expectation to know whether the
> xsl parser that is at the
> client supports ecmascript, Java, C++, C#, Python or
> what ever. All of a
> sudden we're back to a situation similar to the
> browser wars (only worse).
> Although I can assume that 90% of my viewers are
> going to use IE, I'd really
> rather not have to. 
> 
> Adam

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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