Subject: RE: msxml (was: RE: Includes through XSL) From: shalperin@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Shalperin) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:51:38 -0700 |
> Sebastian wrote: > I *was* joking, you know... Yes, I do know you were joking. :) I was using your very real reasons to make a point: no, we don't want to use msxml.dll, but it seems we have to. > you have me at a disadvantage here, because I cannot see why you care > what language something is written in. I can see why you > might dislike > Java, but if I offered you one written in Fortran, is that OK? Using a parser written in C++ is an engineering *requirement*, not a preference. > unless I mistake, there are no C++ implementations of an XSL engine > conforming to the current draft. There are at least two Java implementations that are kept up-to-date and plenty more written in a handful of other languages. Aside from the msxml.dll, there are several C++ XML parsers written by industry leaders, but, sadly these do not implement XSL(T) - yet they have Java counterparts that do and no immediate plans to implement XSL(T) in the C++ versions. It begs the question: why is the C++ community being ignored when it comes to XSL(T)? -s XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: msxml (was: RE: Includes throug, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | RE: msxml (was: RE: Includes throug, Tony Graham |
Re: FO DTD from XSL WD., Stephen Deach | Date | RE: msxml (was: RE: Includes throug, Tony Graham |
Month |