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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Easy question, big headac, Colin Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] Easy question, big headac, Colin Adams |
Re: [xsl] Easy question, big headac, Colin Adams | Date | RE: [xsl] Processing Memory-Hungry , Michael Kay |
Month |