Copied to clipboard

Flag this post as spam?

This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at


  • Sean 141 posts 179 karma points
    Feb 28, 2011 @ 22:11
    Sean
    0

    XPATH & XSLT versions

    Hi there, I'm using the latest version of umbraco CMS and i wanted To know what version of XPATH & XSLT I should be using? Can I use the methods from 2.0? Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Sean

  • Jan Skovgaard 11280 posts 23678 karma points MVP 11x admin c-trib
    Feb 28, 2011 @ 22:15
    Jan Skovgaard
    1

    Hi Sean

    You can't use the methods from 2.0 since the MS XSLT parser does not support XSLT 2.0 yet (Somebody correct me if the explanation is wrong :))

    Hope this helps.

    /Jan

  • Chriztian Steinmeier 2798 posts 8788 karma points MVP 8x admin c-trib
    Feb 28, 2011 @ 22:42
    Chriztian Steinmeier
    2

    Hi Sean,

    Jan is right - Microsoft never got around to supporting XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 in their Parser/Processor for .NET - but Umbraco has a slew of extensions available that should take care of many (but not all) needs in the daily View templating... (personally, I could really use <xsl:next-match /> often, and <xsl:for-each-group /> once in a while).

    /Chriztian 

  • Sean 141 posts 179 karma points
    Mar 01, 2011 @ 13:10
    Sean
    0

    Thanks for the response People. Much appreciated.

  • Connie DeCinko 931 posts 1160 karma points
    May 19, 2011 @ 17:55
    Connie DeCinko
    0

    Anyone know why we have to stick with the Microsoft parser?  Can't Umbraco go with an XSLT 2.0 compliant parser?

     

  • Lee Kelleher 4026 posts 15836 karma points MVP 13x admin c-trib
    May 19, 2011 @ 18:05
    Lee Kelleher
    0

    Hi Connie,

    Some of us started to look at developing an XSLT 2.0 MacroEngine.

    The best option we found was to use Saxon XSLT, but it has a dependency on the IKVM.NET library (Java runtime on .NET) - which brought the filesize to over 15Mb ... we felt that this was quite a performance hit (when compared to using the .NET/MSXML methods) ... so we scrapped our efforts.

    Other decent alternatives were commercial libraries - but couldn't see commercial potential for an XSLT 2.0 MacroEngine/package.

    Cheers, Lee.

  • Connie DeCinko 931 posts 1160 karma points
    May 19, 2011 @ 19:53
    Connie DeCinko
    0

    Lee,

    Yes, 15mb is too much.  But, how close are we getting by adding several extension libraries?  Are we close to the tipping point?

    Connie

     

  • Lee Kelleher 4026 posts 15836 karma points MVP 13x admin c-trib
    May 19, 2011 @ 21:58
    Lee Kelleher
    0

    Hi Connie,

    I dunno, it's a good question, difficult to judge.

    The /bin folder of my local Umbraco dev install (the one I develop/test all my packages against, etc) is 13Mb (including SQL CE4 assemblies and uComponents) ... is that too big? Again, I dunno. :-)

    Since the introduction of the MacroEngine interface, in Umbraco v4.7 (technically v4.6, but improved in v4.7) - the possibility of using whatever parser/render engine you want to use ... including replacing the XSLT macros, (like we were going to do with Saxon XSLT).

    slace wrote a blog post about developing a custom MacroEngine using HAML.

    As for XSLT 2.0 ... if you come across a decent library, let me know - I'd be happy to collaborate on a custom MacroEngine!

    Cheers, Lee.

Please Sign in or register to post replies

Write your reply to:

Draft