various FP languages and some with a C/C++ language base. On the other
hand, XSL-T 2.0 is as good as still-born (to quote a blog by Elliotte Rusty
Harold) given that there are few if any C++ based XSL-T processors that
approach anywhere near the Gold Standard XSL-T 2.0 processor that is Saxon
for Java (and its .Net translation).
Can you link to that quote, because I can find where he's said that in
relation to the lack of a processor written in C++?
- There are no compelling reasons for business investment in alternative
XSL-T implementations
IBM and Intel now have XSLT 2.0 processors, so they must have had a
compelling reason.
- XML processing libraries for C/C++ are disparate; where is XOM for C++ for
instance?
XOM is written by Elliotte Rusty Harold, so the above quote would be
strange if it were correct.
- I'm clueless; please add your input
Could it just be that the world has moved on from C++?
--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--