"Michael Kay" <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com> writes:
To take the discussion in a slightly different direction, there's absolutely
no doubt that there is a demand for XSLT 2.0 especially if it's free. What
is also clear is that not many people are going to develop free XSLT 2.0
processors for the fun or kudos of it. Amateurs are asking serious questions
about whether they can commit the time, and corporations are asking serious
questions about the business case for developing free software.
To be honest, I can't think of many areas where there are multiple
open-source products implementing the same specification. It's rather odd
that we should even imagine that this should be a normal state of affairs.
If we need XSLT 2.0 processors that cover gaps in the market, then we may
have to be prepared to pay for them.
For me, this misses one of the fudemental points about FOSS. I want to
use FOSS because;
1. I can see it and touch it and work out what is wrong with it (if
anything)
2. I can change it, embed it, rewrite it, muck about with it
... and this is much less important than how spec complaint it is and
what language it's written in...
3. I don't have to pay for it.
I don't use an xslt 2.0 processor yet because there isn't one in a
language that is useful to me that satisfies those criteria.
Maybe we could use gcj to make Mike's xslt 2.0 implementation widely
available to other programming languages.
--
Nic Ferrier
http://www.woome.com - Enjoy the minute!
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--