Subject: Re: portability. (Re: microsoft latest, bug with extension elements )? From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 21:30:59 -0700 |
> > This pre-processor could be a 'hardcore' XSLT stylesheet. > > Why should you explain ? Just add one more line to the > > script. > > what script? I dont have scripts. In case you are invoking the rendering manually, yes - you have no scripts. You are really invoking XSLT engines manually ??? > > > in my setup, the really vital extension is multiple output files (in > > > HTML mode). > > > > Well - very bad. This is not a standard at all and it is > > suspicious to write a *portable* stylesheet using > > non-standard and for sure not portable extension > > elements. > > right. thats my compromise. and my defence is that it is explicitly > tagged as a likely addition in the appendix to XSLT, and explicitly > mentioned as a likely contender for XSLT 1.1. I am gambling that it > will be standard in a year Yes, gambling on W3C papers is exciting occupation.... ( um ... pleasure? ) Are you saying that all those XSLT engines you are supporting already have this feature? Or you are talking about *very* limited number of XSLT engines ( say, 3 ? ) I'm having problem to understand what do you mean when saying that you are writing portable XSLT stylesheets. > > Much better is to use redirects ( every OS allows > ) > I dont see the relevance, to be honest When you need multiple outputs, invoke multiple stylesheets. Write a script. ( How your gambling helps you with current versions of XSLT engines - I don't understand ). > > If you want to be portable, I think you should never > > use those <xt:document and alikes. > > no, I shouldn't. But I have to. it really isn't plausible to build a > real system without such a functionality. Yep. That's why "portable XSLT" looks impossible to me. Cause I can say the same about Java extensions. In Ux I have to stop using xt:document, cause it will never work in SAX mode ( replacing it with Ux > redirect ). Ironically I now think it is better not to use xt:document anyway ;-) > > > For the rest, I'll use node-set when it gets into > > > XSLT formally, but otherwise not in public. > > > > Don't understand this. > > my TEI stylesheets dont use node-set, but my stylesheets for > gravestones do. why? cos anyone can use my TEI ones, but no-one else > will ever see my gravestone ones Well ... I hardly understand how can I live without node-set, but that's because I'm embedding. When stylesheet is not using extensions, the need for node-set should be low .... I think I now understand what you mean. > > I don't know what is the name of this beast in SAXON , but I know > > that porting something polluted with extension elements > > is *much* harder than porting something polluted with extension > > functions. > > sorry, I don't see why its *much* harder. if I isolate my use of > saxon:output to one named template, its no big deal to maintain and > port that. I agree. You can isolate saxon:output. I need to think better what I meant to say here - there should be some rationale - trust me ;-) > > SAXON is MS of XSLT and I'm already having problems > > with that. > > but where is your evidence of the widespread use of Saxon? Sometimes it does not matter how much copies are installed, but it is more important *where* those copies are installed, I mean what engine is used by developers who are building 'on-top-of'. I think after XT has been 'dropped' many people are building on SAXON. As I said, if XT not exist - I'l myself start building on SAXON with no question. And when you have saxon:evaluate it is hard to resists using it ;-) Rgds.Paul. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Sebastian Rahtz |
?MSXML transformNode, Serg Stone | Date | Re: Saxon VS XT, Paul Tchistopolskii |
Month |