Subject: Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:02:17 +0100 |
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Trenda <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> writes: Scott> Pointing to non-standard extension functions and possibly Scott> insecure (or locked) protocols to do what, admittedly, seem Scott> like hacks in XSLT isn't a real substitute for a Scott> well-designed (perhaps even standardized) XML language Scott> designed specifically to deal with the day-to-day Scott> requirements of an average webserver. There are no languages designed to do these things - only languages with library routines. So you are right that it's not a substitute - it's the same thing. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Scott Trenda | Thread | RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Scott Trenda |
RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Scott Trenda | Date | Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, James A. Robinson |
Month |