This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL)
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: Which engine? (RE: JavaScript and XSL)
- From: uche dot ogbuji at fourthought dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:33:17 -0600
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
> > > Going back to your original question - "which processor should I use in a
> > > production environment?"... if you are most interested in conforming to the
> > > spec, then MSXML3 and SAXON are the only two products which currently
> > > conform.
> >
> > Excuse me. On what exactly do you base this assertion? 4XSLT
> > (http://fourthought.com/4Suite) also conforms, and I understand that Xalan 1.0
> > does as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others that do.
>
> After I realized that SAXON ( which is very good
> engine) makes hidden RTF->node-set typecast
> ( the thing MS were blamed for ), I feel not
> comfortable when somebody says
> 'conformant XSLT engine' in public place.
"conforming" to a spec that does not have an official conformance test suite
basically means "We have not come across any non-conformance in our testing,
or had any reported that are not scheduled for priority fixing".
I think this is fair statement, and that you needn't take it as meaning more.
> I think all vendors who are claming 100% conformance
> to the XSLT paper really meant : "we *think* we are
> 100% conformant - we have not bother to make sure".
You'll have to point out the "vendors" claiming "100% conformance" more
accurately, because I have not seen that claim on this list.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list