Agreed, but what I think is important is that developers know and understand
what of those extenstions are not "standard" and therefore porting your XSL
may incur problems.

B.T.W some of the ideas in the latest MSXSL preview are excellent.

Rgds,
Steven

Author
Pro XML
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861003110
Pro Site Server 3, Wrox Press
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861002696
Pro Site Server 3.0 Commerce Edition, Wrox Press
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861002505

Steven Livingstone
Glasgow, Scotland.
07771 957 280 or +447771957280

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden
Sent: 16 March 2000 20:36
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Microsoft XSL and Conformance


Steven Livingstone wrote:

>
> Anyway, from what I understand, most, if not all, products mentioned on
this
> list have their own extensions and are any 100% fully compliant?
>
>

    The XSLT extension mechanism is outlined in the spec and an example of
one was provided with James Clark's 11/99 XT implementation ... several of
the implementations have a few nits here and there, what we are talking
about is substantial compliance (modulo bugs) with full compliance as bugs
are reported and fixed.

    In summary, XSLT extensions, provided through the extension mechanism,
do not prevent compliance with http://www.w3.org/tr/xslt .

Jonathan Borden



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


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