Subject: Re: [xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0 in C++ From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:52:15 +0000 |
> 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/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0 in , Justin Johansson | Thread | Re: [xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0, Justin Johansson |
[xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0 in , Justin Johansson | Date | RE: [xsl] Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0, Michael Kay |
Month |