Dave Pawson wrote:
On 06/01/06, Matthew L. Avizinis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Despite its several quite apparent drawbacks, speed and xslt version to
name two, I personally like the Xalan processor because of it's unique
ability to use scripted java extension functions via Rhino.
Matthew L. Avizinis
In the opposite corner;
1. Compliance.
Xalan has always been one or two steps behind Saxon.
2. XSLT 2.0 is available
has features which are 1.0 extensions.
Saxon is available (and compliant now)
I can't see a reason to stay with Xalan?
what about making it configurable? For instance Apache Cocoon allows to
configure the XSLT processor,
because for example sometimes XSLTC is better than Xalan and sometimes
it's the opposite.
Michi
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
