Julian Reschke writes:
 > on a similar question in microsoft.public.xml, I got:
 > 
is it my imagination, or is this pure blather?

 > > XSL syntax and interpretation issue.  There are also subtle things in the
 > > XML language and in the DOM that will unlikely be fully compatible -- this
 > > is due to ambiguity in the w3c specs and the fact that true 100%
 > > cross-platform compatibility is never achievable anyway.

what *are* they talking about? can someone sympathetic to them explain 
what the "ambiguities" in XML might be?

 > > The migration story for XSL is that we will continue to support the IE5.0
 > > XSL namespace with the IE5 behavior and then we will also support the new
 > > XSLT namespace with the XSLT defined behavior.  Arn't namespaces wonderful

and this.  my style sheet says

  xmlns:xsl='http://www.w3.org/XSL/Transform/1.0'

so my things start "<xsl:", just like Microsoft's do. are they saying
that instead I will do

  xmlns:xsl='http://microsoft.com/XSL/Transform/1.0'

??? I could understand it if they said i could do

  xmlns:msxsl='http://microsoft.com/XSL/Transform/1.0'

and then write

 <msxsl:template>

but presumably they *don't* mean that.

Can anyone offer a realistic way they might be going to dig themselves 
out of the hole they dug by implementing a draft recommendation in a
production tool?

Sebastian


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list