RE: Microsoft XSL and Conformance

I would add, like someone said earlier, that the extensions are to make
development quicker and easier for the average developer. I have worked with
a lot of new people to XML/XSL and they find understanding some things
difficult. The extensions help them.

If MS have a copliant XSLT implementation and choose to add extensions, *as
long as they explicitly outline these extensions*, then I think it's fine.
And as importantly, the business development community find it helpful.

Anyway, from what I understand, most, if not all, products mentioned on this
list have their own extensions and are any 100% fully compliant?

I'd say once again, it is very important that developers are explicitly told
what is a non standard extension !!

Cheers,
Steven

Author
Pro XML
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861003110
Pro Site Server 3, Wrox Press
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861002696
Pro Site Server 3.0 Commerce Edition, Wrox Press
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861002505

Steven Livingstone
Glasgow, Scotland.
07771 957 280 or +447771957280

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden
Sent: 16 March 2000 18:02
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Microsoft XSL and Conformance


:-))

Yes, people are passionate about conformance, and I understand a full
implementation may take some time. As I see it, the reason y'all are getting
slammed is that the *extensions* and not get finalized schema features are
being marketed *before* the base XSLT implementation has been done. Of note,
the W3C XSLT spec *does* provide for XSLT extensions so as long as the
implementation is fully conformant and complete these should be evaluated on
their merits.

I understand that you may have limited resources in implementing XSLT, on
the other hand, Microsoft is a big company, and has seriously commited
itself to XML. My impression is that Microsoft as a corporation will respond
to the market, and what you are seeing is that the segment of the market
represented by this list (and XML-DEV) wants to see a fully conformant
implementation *before* we hear about the latest and greatest extensions.
Yes fast is also important, we eagerly await your efforts.

Again, the most important feature for me, not yet implemented is document()
support. Hint Hint...

Jonathan Borden

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Awesome move, Andy!  Amazing how quick the mob dispersed...
>
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm Andy Kimball, the Microsoft XSL developer.  After today's "nested
> > template abomination" discussion, I had a couple of comments.  First,
> > Microsoft is committed to delivering a conformant XSLT
> > processor.  If you
> > don't believe "Microsoft", then at least believe me.  I'm
> > writing the thing.
> > I've often gritted my teeth and implemented some feature that
> > I thought was
> > inelegant, less than useful, or arbitrarily limited, just to
> > be compliant.
> > As I receive feedback from the XSL community, I've been
> > surprised at how
> > vocal and passionate people are about conformance (of course,
> > people also
> > want performance, scalability, and usability without any
> > trade-offs, and
> > they want it yesterday--unrealistic, but understandable).
> > Now, I may not be
> > able to cross every tiny 't', and dot every insignificant
> > 'i', but I will
> > make a good-faith effort to implement according to the 1.0
> > spec.  If you
> > find conformance problems that concern you, feel free to e-mail me at
> > akimball@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ~Andy Kimball



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


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