The project I work on has an extensive customization layer on top of
Docbook XSL.
The customization layer I work with was written by multiple developers
in a big hurry. This was all done in XSLT 1.0. It's a mess.
We're in the process of re-writing / cleaning up our customization layer.
The error handling in Saxon 9 is less forgiving than Saxon 6 and forces
us to write better code through more extensive error reporting. S9
halts processing on stylesheet issues that S6 would overlook. Example:
string / integer comparison (casting).
I like having the ability to use XSLT 2.0 in that customization layer.
There's a lot more that XSLT 2.0 offers me and the other developers I
work with.
~Shane
Mauritz Jeanson wrote:
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Shane Handford
|
| We're not switching back to Saxon 6. Using XSLT2 And the
| error handling
| / validation is far superior in Saxon 9.
Hmm. I don't understand what you mean by "using XSLT2" and the error
handling/validation stuff. What is it that you validate?
The DocBook stylesheets are written in XSLT 1.0, and I am not aware of any
real benefit of using an XSLT 2.0 processor on those stylesheets. But I
could be missing something, of course.
| We've had to comment out the use of TextFactory from our
| Docbook XSL source.
|
| How will this be handled when Docbook releases an XSLT2 version?
I don't know for sure, but some extensions will probably not be needed since
they can be implemented in pure XSLT 2.0.
BTW, there is a set of experimental XSLT 2.0 stylesheets. If you're curious,
download docbook-xsl2-snapshot.zip from
http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/.
Mauritz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
