RE: [xsl] Easy question, big headache.

Subject: RE: [xsl] Easy question, big headache.
From: "Patrick Bergeron" <pbergeron@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:02:06 -0400
Why yes, you're absolutely right.  I'll rephrase and simply say: 

"XSLT 1.0 is something I have to live with [at the moment [because we're
about to ship [and it's not just a recompile]]]".

Here's a newbie question: what other free XSLT 2.0 processor is there out
there (and available as source code) ?



-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Adams [mailto:colinpauladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:05 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xsl] Easy question, big headache.

On 11/03/2008, Patrick Bergeron <pbergeron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  And yes, XSLT 1.0 is a constraint I need to live with, too bad.
>

It didn't sound like it to me. As far as I could tell, your only
limitation was that you didn't want to bother with compiling an XSLT
processor on your embedded system.

Current Thread