RE: msxml (was: RE: Includes through XSL)
> Sebastian wrote: > I *was* joking, you know... Yes, I do know you were joking. :) I was using your very real reasons to make a point: no, we don't want to use msxml.dll, but it seems we have to. > you have me at a disadvantage here, because I cannot see why you care > what language something is written in. I can see why you > might dislike > Java, but if I offered you one written in Fortran, is that OK? Using a parser written in C++ is an engineering *requirement*, not a preference. > unless I mistake, there are no C++ implementations of an XSL engine > conforming to the current draft. There are at least two Java implementations that are kept up-to-date and plenty more written in a handful of other languages. Aside from the msxml.dll, there are several C++ XML parsers written by industry leaders, but, sadly these do not implement XSL(T) - yet they have Java counterparts that do and no immediate plans to implement XSL(T) in the C++ versions. It begs the question: why is the C++ community being ignored when it comes to XSL(T)? -s XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format