Michael,
Its not that they want a free lunch, opex is almost always easier to arrange
than capex. For capex, its easier to get money for things that are already
heavily used: "we depend on it/need support" is an easier sell than "this
thing we don't have will save LOTS of effort by developers" (a statement
that has been worn thin by unsuccessful repetition).
Greg
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 26/01/2013 20:58, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
Hi Folks,
I only know of one fully-compliant XSLT/XPath 3.0 processor -- SAXON.
The next release of Saxon will, I hope, have complete coverage of the
XPath 3.0 candidate recommendation. But full conformance with XSLT 3.0 is
still some way off.
And it's not free.
Are there any free, fully-compliant XSLT/XPath 3.0 processors?
I believe that it is important there be at least one free,
fully-compliant XSLT/XPath 3.0 processor.
Here's why: The people I work with think along these lines...
Yes, you're right, a lot of people are looking for a free lunch. I'm glad
you've realised this, and will now devote the next three years of your life
to feeding their hunger.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--