Subject: Re: reliability of MSXML
From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:22:01 +0100
|
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:12:22AM -0000, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Okay, I apologize to Mike for the harsh wording.
>
> No apology needed. I'm fully aware that I made some design decisions which,
> with hindsight, have proved wrong and have caused the community some
> portability problems.
Question: what's the best way to try to get rid of the problem
(or at least make it easier to handle) ?
I didn't follow XSLT development lately, is the NodeSet/ResultValueTree
difference garanteed to disapear in 2.0 ? That would be a good indication.
Maybe the XSL WG chairs would agree on getting this information out,
possibly after consulting the group.
I assume SAXON has completely unified the two notions and so this would
requires a lot of code rewrite to (re)implement the distinction, even to
simply raise a warning ...
Hum, the issue is not simple,
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
- Re: reliability of MSXML, (continued)
- David Carlisle - Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:47:07 -0500 (EST)
- Daniel Veillard - Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:10:34 -0500 (EST)
- Pedro Pastor - Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:26:12 -0500 (EST)
- Michael Kay - Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:06:16 -0500 (EST)
- Daniel Veillard - Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:21:54 -0500 (EST) <=
- Michael Kay - Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:38:31 -0500 (EST)
- Kevin Jones - Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:57:17 -0500 (EST)
- Michael Kay - Fri, 9 Nov 2001 04:14:12 -0500 (EST)
- Kevin Jones - Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:10:30 -0500 (EST)
|
|