Re: Saxon VS XT

Paul Tchistopolskii writes:
 > 
 > Sebastian, I apologize, but maybe  you will provide me with 
 > some particular usecase which can not be done 
 > with current  XT ( + Java ) ?  

How do you do sorting and grouping? I used to have a solution in XT
which was *pig* slow. Then I switched to Muenchian keys using Saxon,
and it speeded up beyond recognition. Is that not a real case?

The other obvious item is support of output encodings other then
UTF8. Yes, I can work around that.

 > I think that I can do anything  in XT + Java *and*  XT + Java 
 > solution will be faster  than  'conformant' solution. 

fine for you. you can program in Java. I can't.  And how much faster? 
I dont care if its only a few percent

 > This 'conformance' dance is exciting, but I still think  that 
 > it is XT that has no competition ( at least as 'the embeddable 
 > XSLT engine' area 

I bow to your superior knowledge in the embeddable engine area. I don't
know to embed engines, so it doesnt affect me. If I was building
products (which I cant), perhaps I'd agree with you.

 >  By design, by implementation and by  common sense. 
yes, yes, but "common sense"??? why?

 > PPS. I'll be glad if XT will be 100% conformant but I'll be glad *not* 
 > because I'll start using the missing ( almost useless ) features, 
seriously, do you think keys are useless?

 > but only because this will allow me to say: "XT is 100% conformant" 
 > to those lost souls who are self-limiting themselves with pieces 
 > of paper published on some website.

its a matter of degree. if we can conform without too much loss, isnt
it better to do so?

Sebastian


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