Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-Id: <200009211835.LAA10265@orion.nsr.hp.com>
From: Ovidiu Predescu <ovidiu@cup.hp.com>
To: Zvi <thezvi@ifrance.com>
Cc: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: portable usage of extension functions in XSLT? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:51:12 +0200."
             <39CA589F.AAC9D078@ifrance.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_213081496P";
	 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:35:12 -0700
Sender: ovidiu@cup.hp.com

--==_Exmh_213081496P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:51:12 +0200, Zvi <thezvi@ifrance.com> wrote:

> the second is better, just write for Xalan, and if somebody will be interested in
> other XSLT processor like XT, he/she will port it.
> 
> the 3rd solution is to pass the entire UserAgent capabilities document as
> parameter, using <xsl:param>.

Passing the entire user agent capabilities document as a parameter is in fact a
more portable solution than using extension functions. I like this idea, it's
great! Passing a parameter is something that happens at the Cocoon level and
the syntax in the XSLT stylesheet is always the same, no matter what XSLT
processor is used. I may be a little slower but that should be OK.

Thanks,
Ovidiu

-- 
Ovidiu Predescu <ovidiu@cup.hp.com>
http://orion.nsr.hp.com/ (inside HP's firewall only)
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/


--==_Exmh_213081496P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000

iD8DBQE5ylTg1cM8Hy0YC5kRAl6dAKCnAZDsLKgjASPXVqDK+anDuQx9FwCfXbtU
G6EfonBXxuSPNzBUA/G52Mc=
=OYam
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_213081496P--