This will ease the transition from 1.0 to 2.0, allowing users to still
code in 1.0 but take advantage of the best bits of 2.0 (no node-set,
xhtml output etc).
It's an argument, but I think the overall effect will be negative and
harmful to XSLT usage.
In particlular people (now, who could I be thinking of here:-) will write
and distribute stylesheets purporting to be XSLT1 that work when they
test them but that will fail to compile and so fail to produce any result
on any conformant XSLT 1 processor. That way lies confusion....
This will ease the transition from 1.0 to 2.0, allowing users to still
code in 1.0 but take advantage of the best bits of 2.0 (no node-set,
xhtml output etc).
If the code doesn't run on any XSLT processor then in what sense can it
be said to be coded in 1.0? Some small backward incompatibilities, even
in BC mode, are inevitable given the wildly different data models for 1.0
and 2.0, but I don't think turning a syntax error into a "feature"
is a mild incompatibility.
David
--
http://www.dcarlisle.demon.co.uk/matthew
________________________________________________________________________
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