Re: Re: XSLT 1.1 comments

> James Clark wrote:
> 
> > Adam Van Den Hoven wrote:
> >  
> > > 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.
> > 
> > This is not the case in XSLT 1.0.  For example:
> > 
> > - Stylesheets that use extensions (whether extension functions or
> > extension elements) are 100% XSLT compliant, but there is not 
> guarantee
> > that a processor will be able to handle them.
> > 
> > - XSLT 1.0 also allows extension of output methods and sorting
> > datatypes, which are not guaranteed to be supported.
> > 
> > - XSLT 1.0 processors are not required to support
> > disable-output-escaping.
> 
> 
> I would add to this list yet another item:
> 
> - the result of xsl:sort may be different on different XSLT processors.

Hmm.  We could add to this list until the cows come home:

- The order of attribute nodes could differ on output
- The namespace nodes on output may differ
- There might be a different set of attributes in the source tree for 
different parsers (depending on whether they use validating or non-validating 
parsers)

etc.

But none of this is directly relevant to my opposition to xsl:script.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



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