Re: Elements and functions available

> I would like to include all extensions in all XSLT processors but my

Probably you may be interested to know about existing EXSLT support
for Microsoft XSLT processors:

  1. EXSLT.NET. Developed by Dare Obasanjo, Oleg Tkachenko and some
parts by me, later taken under the MVPXML project:
      http://www.codeplex.com/MVPXML/Wiki/View.aspx?title=EXSLT.NET&referringTitle=Home

  2. EXSLT for MSXML4. See the original 3003 XML.com article at:
      http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/08/06/exslt.html

  3. EXSLT for MSXML6 (the above patched to work with MSXML6). Patch
submitted by Moriyoshi Koizumi:
      https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1880582&group_id=53841&atid=471781


-- 
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play




On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Jesper Tverskov <jesper@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Colin Paul Adams wrote:
> "Your inclusion of extension functions and instructions for saxon and
> not for other processors though, is silly. You should either include
> extensions for all processors known to you, or none at all."
>
> - - -
>
> I would like to include all extensions in all XSLT processors but my
> stylesheet doesn't work in surprisingly many XSLT 1.0 processors not
> even in Saxon 6.5.5 due to the way they have implemented
> element-available() and function-available(), leaving most of the
> relevant additional sets of extensions out of reach.
>
> I do plan to improve the stylesheet to make it easier to add tests for
> additional sets of extensions. I am not sure if it is possible to make
> a transformation and then make a nice TOC for the output document in
> the output document in XSLT 1.0. But I could to that for XSLT 2.0
> processors.
>
> I know it is a little silly to include Saxon's extensions also in
> reports for non-Saxon processors but at least I do it with some
> arguments:
>
> "Saxon's extensions are not necessarily relevant for Saxon only. If
> you use another XSLT processor, it can be nice to know what extensions
> are available in the trendsetting Saxon XSLT 2.0 processor. It can
> give you a hint for what to look or ask for in the XSLT processor you
> use. If some new XSLT 2.0 processor needs extensions, why not
> implement Saxon's?"
>
> Jesper Tverskov
> http://www.xmlplease.com/elements-functions