Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On Feb 22, 2005, at 7:16 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:
The support of XSLT 2.0 might be a reason, but without a high priority for us. There are no filters currently using XSLT2.0, furthermore the W3C specification (ie. http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/) has still only working draft status - even the one released on the 11th this month.
It likely might change and cause follow-up changes on the implementation of the XSLT2.0 engine (Saxon), which possibly cause regressions on any exisiting XSLT2.0 filters.
The main reason choosing Xalan was that the XSLT filters of the office used earlier already the Xalan implementation of the JRE 1.4 and Xalan JARs of an earlier version were already been added to OOo1.x.
Therefore I expected the less negative impact by adding this implementation.
OK, but this can be revisited again in the future.
AFAIK, there are no compelling technical reasons (speed, stability, features) to use Xalan over Saxon, and XSLT 2.0 is a dramatic improvement over 1.0 in many areas (string handling, grouping, etc., etc.). The citation processing stylesheets I am writing -- which I hope to see integrated into OOo at some point -- are being written in XSLT 2.0.
It's fair point to note that the spec is only at the working draft status, but I say once it's finished, it should be a priority to support it.
Bruce, I totally agree with you. It might be even easier if Xalan comes up with XSLT2.0 soon, but as you said the XSLT engine choice will be revisted in the future.
Svante
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
