On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Daniel Veillard wrote: > I have been told that libxslt was not a proper XSLT implementation one > too many time on that frigging list, so I won't read to any of it anymore, > for good or bad. If someone wants to discuss libxslt here is the place, > I don't have time nor willingness to follow the one at mulberrytech anymore.
Fair enough. I'm new to both lists, so I don't know any of the history. I'm at a loss for what to do at this point. On the one hand, I don't want to step outside the bounds of XSLT 1.0. On the other hand, the efficiency boost of keys referencing keys is best case O(n^2) down to best case O(n). I could just say, well, I'm adhering to 1.0 except that I'm borrowing this one feature that will be available in 2.0 because it just seems so impossible to live without it. Do you see XSLT 2.0 in libxslt's future? In light of the discovery that keys referencing keys is supposed to be an error in 1.0, are you still willing to allow it? Have you ever considered having a --strict flag (or --non-strict) for xsltproc to select whether extensions like this should be permitted? Thanks. Joel _______________________________________________ xslt mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xslt
