[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
RE: [xsl] order-by in WD-xsl?
Subject: RE: [xsl] order-by in WD-xsl?|
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:00:23 -0400
At 10:25 PM 5/11/2004, you wrote:
I totally agree, unfortunatetly business, and my mentor do not (I am a
trainee so I have a mentor). The problem with the whole namespace/parser
thing has put them off. I mention the little parser problem and everyone
gets extremely worried. So long story short I have been told to keep to the
old namespace. I am a lowly Analyist Programmer, I am young and fairly
inexperienced so I should heed my mentors advice.
It's kind of amazing that five years after the event, the confusion caused
by the proprietary MS "XSL" is still haunting us. I do not attribute this
to dark motives on anyone's part. MSXML in its modern form is a fine piece
of software (near as I can tell, using it casually in IE almost every day,
though not developing to it as such).
http://netcrucible.com/xslt/msxml-faq.htm provides some helpful
documentation on this issue -- note that while it does not explain why
migrating off WD-xsl is a good idea, it pretty much assumes that a
standards-conformant processor such as the more recent releases of MSXML is
preferable to beta technology like the WD-xsl processor. And it was written
four years ago.
MSDN documentation is all about XSLT, the conformant language, and doesn't
even mention WD-xsl any more from what I can see.
Unfortunatly users cannot install anything on their c drive. I have also
been told that the script also cannot do it. They do not have access to it,
the only way is to get IBM to do it (we have a contract with them to do all
of our computer/mainframe stuff), and it is unescessary now because I have
a solution for WD-xsl.
It's surprisingly difficult to confirm this browsing the MS site, but I
believe IE6 has the conformant processor built in. (Someone on this list
does know.) Assuming this is the case, and that your systems are current to
that version of the browser, your users are good to go.
But it sounds like you have the issue under control. For now. If you ever
have any more maintenance to do, expect it to come up again. :-> (And as
it happens, you're benefiting from a proprietary feature to do your
sorting, which would be more difficult otherwise. Ironies never cease.)
"Thus I make my own use of the telegraph, without consulting
the directors, like the sparrows, which I perceive use it
extensively for a perch." -- Thoreau