libxml2, libxslt in mozilla2.0?

David Hyatt hyatt at meer.net
Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:50:28 -0700


I don't believe any of Mozilla's current limitations regarding XSLT are 
technical.  In the case of XSLT, I think a deliberate design decision 
was made that causes most of the WinIE incompatibilities.  One could 
rectify that (IMO) design mistake without abandoning Transformiix.

Basically Mozilla's path when transforming is to go directly from 
source DOM to result DOM.  What I did in Safari is go from source 
libxml DOM to result libxml DOM to serialized stream, which then gets 
fed to the parser and built into a KHTML DOM.  This is important for 
features like document.write, proper loading of subresources, and 
disable-output-escaping.

It's also nice too to not have to be in the business of maintaining 
XSLT support.

As for libxml, I can't say enough good things about it.  DTD loading 
hooks, better error reporting hooks, built in namespace support, and so 
on.

dave


On Aug 24, 2004, at 5:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> For XForms, it sounds like bryner is gonna use libxml2 for schemas.  
> We could use relax-ng or schemas for developer tools to check XUL, for 
> sure (Bob Clary has written a XUL 1.0 Relax-NG schema).
>
> So if by next year XForms, an optional Gecko extension, depends on 
> libxml2, what would we lose by switching from expat and transformiix 
> to libxml2 and libxslt?  We'd gain the ability to load DTDs and other 
> stuff from separate URIs, which we now lack.  Hyatt says good things, 
> and shaver and vlad vouch for DV (libxml2's author).  Reactions?
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> Mozilla2.0 mailing list
> Mozilla2.0@mozilla.org
> http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla2.0