The project I work on has an extensive customization layer on top of
Docbook XSL.
The customization layer I work with was written by multiple developers
in a big hurry. This was all done in XSLT 1.0. It's a mess.
We're in the process of re-writing / cleaning up our customization layer.
The error handling in Saxon 9 is less forgiving than Saxon 6 and forces
us to write better code through more extensive error reporting. S9
halts processing on stylesheet issues that S6 would overlook. Example:
string / integer comparison (casting).
I like having the ability to use XSLT 2.0 in that customization layer.
There's a lot more that XSLT 2.0 offers me and the other developers I
work with.
~Shane
Mauritz Jeanson wrote:
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Shane Handford
> |
> | We're not switching back to Saxon 6. Using XSLT2 And the
> | error handling
> | / validation is far superior in Saxon 9.
>
>
> Hmm. I don't understand what you mean by "using XSLT2" and the error
> handling/validation stuff. What is it that you validate?
>
> The DocBook stylesheets are written in XSLT 1.0, and I am not aware of any
> real benefit of using an XSLT 2.0 processor on those stylesheets. But I
> could be missing something, of course.
>
>
> | We've had to comment out the use of TextFactory from our
> | Docbook XSL source.
> |
> | How will this be handled when Docbook releases an XSLT2 version?
>
>
> I don't know for sure, but some extensions will probably not be needed since
> they can be implemented in pure XSLT 2.0.
>
> BTW, there is a set of experimental XSLT 2.0 stylesheets. If you're curious,
> download docbook-xsl2-snapshot.zip from
>
http://docbook.sourceforge.net/snapshots/.>
> Mauritz
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org> For additional commands, e-mail:
docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org>