> It's an argument, but I think the overall effect will be 
> negative and harmful to XSLT usage.
> 
> In particlular people (now, who could I be thinking of 
> here:-) will write and distribute stylesheets purporting to 
> be XSLT1 that work when they test them but that will fail to 
> compile and so fail to produce any result on any conformant 
> XSLT 1 processor. That way lies confusion....

I think the only confusion would come from seeing version="1.0" at the
top of the stylesheet and then assuming that it contained only 1.0 code.
As we know, a stylesheet can quite happily specify version="1.0" and
contain 2.0 code.  So, by specifying version="1.0" I'm not in any way
guranteeing that my stylesheet will run on any conforming processor.
(This seems silly doesn't it?)

But then, as node-set() was an extension function, it would be rare that
a 1.0 stylesheet would work with *any* conforming processor, more like a
subset of conforming processors (exsl, xalan, msxml).

I think most of us have control of our target environments, so
portability comes last compared to functionality, performance and
maintainability.  Having to convert RTF's to a node-set is a pain, the
difference between the two is only theoretical, and the sooner they're
forgotten about the better :)  
 


 

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