This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Saxon VS XT
Paul Tchistopolskii writes:
>
> Sebastian, I apologize, but maybe you will provide me with
> some particular usecase which can not be done
> with current XT ( + Java ) ?
How do you do sorting and grouping? I used to have a solution in XT
which was *pig* slow. Then I switched to Muenchian keys using Saxon,
and it speeded up beyond recognition. Is that not a real case?
The other obvious item is support of output encodings other then
UTF8. Yes, I can work around that.
> I think that I can do anything in XT + Java *and* XT + Java
> solution will be faster than 'conformant' solution.
fine for you. you can program in Java. I can't. And how much faster?
I dont care if its only a few percent
> This 'conformance' dance is exciting, but I still think that
> it is XT that has no competition ( at least as 'the embeddable
> XSLT engine' area
I bow to your superior knowledge in the embeddable engine area. I don't
know to embed engines, so it doesnt affect me. If I was building
products (which I cant), perhaps I'd agree with you.
> By design, by implementation and by common sense.
yes, yes, but "common sense"??? why?
> PPS. I'll be glad if XT will be 100% conformant but I'll be glad *not*
> because I'll start using the missing ( almost useless ) features,
seriously, do you think keys are useless?
> but only because this will allow me to say: "XT is 100% conformant"
> to those lost souls who are self-limiting themselves with pieces
> of paper published on some website.
its a matter of degree. if we can conform without too much loss, isnt
it better to do so?
Sebastian
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list