At 4:41 PM +0000 1/23/07, Andrew Welch wrote:
Out of the people that put in the effort to reply to questions on the
list, I think it's fair if they assume XSLT 2.0 if the OP hasn't been
explicit.
That depends on what you mean by "fair". If you mean "will happen
fairly often and will create a fair amount of confusion" I agree with
you. If you mean "is reasonable and encouraged" I disagree.
It seems to me that there may come a time when it will be reasonable
to assume that all unspecified questions are about XSLT 2.0, and
there may come a time when answers that assume XSLT 2.0 will not need
to specify this either. But that time has not come.
For the moment, I ask that people responding to questions try to
determine what version the OP is using - possibly by asking - and not
make such an assumption. Equally important, I ask that answers
clearly specify what version of XSLT they are describing.
Thank you.
-- Tommie
--
======================================================================
B. Tommie Usdin
mailto:btusdin(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Phone: 301/315-9631
Suite 207 Direct Line: 301/315-9634
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in XML and SGML
======================================================================
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--