Subject: RE: [xsl] Vote for libexslt support for Safari From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:15:34 +0100 |
> "- is EXSLT relatively stable as a spec and implementation > (so we won't be creating future possible compat issues)?" If it has a problem, it's that it's been too stable... There's quite a lot in there that is a bit tentative and has been in that state for some years and could do with firming up. However, it does distinguish stable specifications from the more tentative proposals. The specs are a bit informal, which means you may get interoperability issues across implementations in corner cases, but you're unlikely to hit serious backwards compatibility issues because it's an informal spec so as a vendor you always have the choice whether to implement any changes or not. The other issue of course is that many of the EXSLT functions become obsolete when you move to XSLT 2.0, so if you put them into a 1.0 implementation now you may be committing yourself to carry them forward into a future 2.0 implementation where they are (in many cases) no longer needed except for backwards compatibility. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Vote for libexslt support for, M. David Peterson | Thread | Re: [xsl] Vote for libexslt support, M. David Peterson |
[xsl] Vote for libexslt support for, M. David Peterson | Date | Re: [xsl] Vote for libexslt support, M. David Peterson |
Month |