|
Subject: Re: [xsl] FizzBuzz in XSLT 1.0. Help with a 2.0/FXSL solution? From: "M. David Peterson" <m.david@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:39:40 -0600 |
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:46:58 -0600, Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > True. It's altogether a much more mature language, that still has its flaws (but which language hasn't?) but is ready to hit mainstream. Agreed. >A while back, there was a post about 99 bottles. About the same happened with it, resulting in XSLT 2.0 again proving much more powerful then its predecessor. I remember it well > http://blogs.msdn.com/mfussell/archive/2004/05/13/130969.aspx#131159 < ;-) and if I am remembering correctly, each of the XSLT 2.0 follow-ups were just as you pointed out: An obvious check in the win column for XSLT 2.0 to take center stage moving forward. -- /M:D M. David Peterson http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] FizzBuzz in XSLT 1.0. He, Abel Braaksma | Thread | Re: [xsl] FizzBuzz in XSLT 1.0. Hel, Dimitre Novatchev |
| RE: [xsl] sum() Function Used With , Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl:function vs named tem, Colin Adams |
| Month |