RE: odf2xhtml

> -----Original Message-----
> From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:15 PM
>=20
> If OOo stayed with saxon9.jar then any faults/improvements
> would not be addressed.

I was never bitten by any nasty bug with Saxon-B but of course
that's just me. What I'm wondering, though, is whether it is
desirable to have some obscure corner-case bugs solved (small
benefit) at the expense of parting with saxon proprietary
extensions (big cost)?


> Temporary trees, imported stylesheets and modes... though
> admittedly not nearly as convenient as "next-in-chain".

Temporary trees + modes are a maintenance nightmare: I know, I've
been there. But often, Saxon extensions have a way of making it
into the spec... any hope here?

=20
> But using extensions at any time is risky.  I underscore that in my=20
> class.  I might start citing your predicament as another example of=20
> why.  I have three public classes coming up in the next three months=20
> and I'll see what students have to say about the situation in which=20
> you find yourself.

Well, that's a way of looking at the problem, I suppose. Another way
is to say that I'm not, as of this moment, in any kind of situation;
I may have a problem in the distant future -- if:
- I don't find a solution when (if) the problem does arise
- my users have an irrepressible urge to upgrade OOo (and one lets them)
- etc.

In other words, I still think using next-in-chain in this particular
context was very much worth it. As always, YMMV ;-)

Regards,
EB