Subject: Re: [xsl] Definite list of XSLT 2.0 processors? From: Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:52:34 +0000 |
2010/1/19 Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Andrew Welch wrote: >> >> 2010/1/18 Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >>> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> Yes, well, my response to Vyacheslav was a tad rhetorical. >>> >>> So let's rephrase my original quandary yet again. >>> >>> "Given the neglect (i.e. XSLT for anything else other than Saxon/Java >>> (notwithstanding .Net autoport)), >>> does *any other* community really want one?" >>> >> >> As was mentioned earlier in the thread, Intel and IBM both have their >> own commercial xslt 2.0 processors, and MarkLogic is adding xslt 2.0 >> support in version 5... (because of popular demand) >> >> Everyone wants XSLT 2.0, it's the best! >> >> > > First, thanks to all for replies to my inquiry on this thread and also many thanks to Abel Braaksma for seeding this discussion. > > Yay, Andrew, I don't need any convincing of, as you say, "XSLT 2.0, it's the best" :-) > > What I was hoping for was more convincing that there are real gaps in the "market" for XSLT 2.0 engines and particularly in the C/C++ implementation space. > Porting Saxon from Java to C++ would be a good move ! Aaron
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Definite list of XSLT 2.0, Wendell Piez | Thread | Re: [xsl] Definite list of XSLT 2.0, Michael Dykman |
Re: [xsl] Definite list of XSLT 2.0, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | Re: [xsl] Definite list of XSLT 2.0, Michael Dykman |
Month |