Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Your inclusion of extension functions and instructions for saxon and
not for other processors though, is silly. You should either include
extensions for all processors known to you, or none at all."
- - -
I would like to include all extensions in all XSLT processors but my
stylesheet doesn't work in surprisingly many XSLT 1.0 processors not
even in Saxon 6.5.5 due to the way they have implemented
element-available() and function-available(), leaving most of the
relevant additional sets of extensions out of reach.
I do plan to improve the stylesheet to make it easier to add tests for
additional sets of extensions. I am not sure if it is possible to make
a transformation and then make a nice TOC for the output document in
the output document in XSLT 1.0. But I could to that for XSLT 2.0
processors.
I know it is a little silly to include Saxon's extensions also in
reports for non-Saxon processors but at least I do it with some
arguments:
"Saxon's extensions are not necessarily relevant for Saxon only. If
you use another XSLT processor, it can be nice to know what extensions
are available in the trendsetting Saxon XSLT 2.0 processor. It can
give you a hint for what to look or ask for in the XSLT processor you
use. If some new XSLT 2.0 processor needs extensions, why not
implement Saxon's?"
Jesper Tverskov
http://www.xmlplease.com/elements-functions
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--