Re: xsl-for-each

[Joseph Kesselman]

On Tuesday, 07/09/2002 at 03:11 MST, Peter Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 July 2002 14:28, Joseph Kesselman wrote:
> > The point of standards is that they _ARE_ standards, and you should be very
> > explicit about when you're stepping outside their scope.
>
> The problem is that the standard in question was very short sited, placing
> this unecessary restriction on the use of RTFs.

Which is why it's being corrected in XSLT 2.0.

> If there were a standard extension mechanism, then I wouldn't have a problem.

Which I believe is also being corrected in 2.0, or at least a proposal along those lines was made -- I'm not sure what the current status is.


But a "quirks" solution would be no better than the extensions we have now. Less so, if anything, because it hides the details of where you're departing from the standard and thus makes porting the stylesheet to another processor with different quirks much, much harder.

"Quirks" simplifies things only as long as you never change processors, or change only to processors that have _IDENTICAL_ quirks. If the quirks don't match *exactly*, it rapidly becomes a maintainance disaster. Emphatically not a good idea, in my opinion.



______________________________________
Joe Kesselman / IBM Research