>> Yes, but I'd still rather stick to the standard.

2010/6/14 ac <ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> You probably mean "browser limitations" as the standard is xslt2.  Of
> course, in the end, it may be the same difference ...
>

Well, then I'd rather stick to the "adopted standard".  (Why is XSLT 2
so badly supported?)  I've only very basic experience with XSLT 1, but
my non-expert impression so far is that implementations are pretty
consistent, as opposed to e.g. ECMAScript (to call it by the
"standard" name) where you can hit surprises all the time.  I wonder
whether the relatively limited scope of XSLT/XPath 1 is an advantage
in this regard.  But then I might just not yet have gone into the
depth that reveals the problems.

Thomas W.