Thanks for the explanation.
Agree re 'moving on', but the work in docbook is 'significant'.
regards
On 23 July 2017 at 14:50, Michael Kay mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com
<xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 23 Jul 2017, at 14:43, Dave Pawson dave(_dot_)pawson(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
Mike - that really messes with docbook which are all 1.0 stylesheets.
Is that the rec or your decision? Or a compat issue?
It's our decision. It's time people switched to 2.0. It was probably Saxon-JS
that pushed us that way - we really don't want extra code in the product to
support a compatibility mode, when it's pretty easy to change your stylesheet
to make it work "natively" under 2.0.
If there's strong demand we could provide an option that says "I know this
stylesheet says version="1.0" and that the spec says it should therefore
either run in backwards compability mode or not at all, but actually I want
you to run it as if it said version="2.0".
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--