Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Correct, but this is not a good reason to have them run their > well-thought stylesheets slower, don't you think?
Agree. >> I'm not saying we shouldn't be bugtesting for XSLTC, it's just that I >> don't know if the XSLTC community will be there to follow up on our >> bug reports. > > > I hear you. Consider it a stress-test of both the software *and* the > community around it. I've been investigating http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xalan-cvs&s=xsltc a bit and it seems like there are some people actively working on it. Only Sun-people however, and I recently organized an XSLT seminar with Michael Kay who was quite 'amused' w.r.t. XSLTC compliance & partial performance optimalization of XSLTC. But he's obviously biased :-) > Anyway, just a reminder: you never get people to scratch if you don't > create some itches :) Would that be itches or just pet peeves? ;-) > And if this thing doesn't work out as expected, we can always ship > Cocoon 2.1 final with Xalan enabled. > > What do you think? Fair enough. We'll be a prime beta test site for both Avalon and XSLTC. I believe we should definitely start warning people upfront that they really should stick to release versions, instead of relying on CVS checkouts of HEAD/2.1-dev - for some reason, there's quite some people using CVS instead of our release version. But that's another rant. Thanks for your analysis, BTW! </Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
