David,
Of course there should be a difference between FXSLT (based on XSLT definition,
though interpreted as well) than using the same extension, for instance, from
Saxon, where the function is developed in a language like java. I can think of
performance issues difference, for instance, but I cannot guess the result.
Also, portability is another issue, which I think FXSLT should be in advantage.
Claudio.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc(_at_)nag(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk]
Sent: Viernes, 04 de Julio de 2003 08:42 a.m.
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Re: XSLT Architecture: Next Step
So, this library, somehow replaces any/some/all of the extensions
provided by MSXML, XALAN, SAXON, and other interpreters?
Not really. FXSL is a library of routines _written in_ XSLT (1.0 +
node-set extension) so it may or may not offer some functioanlity that
overlaps with some extension functions but there is a big difference
between writing a program _in_ a language and extending the language
itself, even if the two things do the same job in a few cases.
Meaning that is pure XSLT 2.0, the interpreters that stack to XSLT 1.0
wouldn't be capable of run them?
Dimitre has recently provided a second version of the library which uses
XSLT2, clearly a program written in XSLT2 won't normally run in an XSLT1
system. Of course XSLT2 is only a draft at present.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list