[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XSLT 1.1 comments
James Clark : > 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. Those extensions do not belong to XSLT namespace. If I decide to use them then I have knowingly tied myself to a specific flavour of parser. I can live with that. If I use tags that are not in the XSL namespace then its not 100% xsl is it. its XSL + saxon extensions. Its still valid XSL but its not 100% pure BC grown XSL. > - XSLT 1.0 also allows extension of output methods and sorting > datatypes, which are not guaranteed to be supported. But aren't these in a different namespace or somehow separate from xslt? > - XSLT 1.0 processors are not required to support > disable-output-escaping. Personally, I hate it when a standard says I can use something but doesn't guarantee that it will be implemented. These things should be avoided when ever possible. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|