Re: Quasi-Literals and XML

Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> > My point is that in the first place the statement that XSL is not
> > Turing-complete is debatable
> 
> It's not debatable, it's a lie, thanks for drawing it to our attention.
> 
> But presumably xmlhack isn't a peer-reviewed journal, so anyone with a
> product to peddle can say what they like.

Mike,

I do know that XSLT is Turing complete and you can check if you wish
through a prior post [1] (in French) on XMLfr.

This sentence was a quote that doesn't express my own position --if I
was quoting only stuff with which I agree, my articles would be shorter
and people would find them subjective ;=) .

I had been as far as I wish to allow myself to go in a story that isn't
labelled as a "comment" by qualifying the statement of "strong
sentiments".

We use to think that people are able to do their own judgement and "our
aim is to distill essential news, opinions, tips and issues concerning
XML development" rather than to tell people what we think they should
think. 

We have also recently added a feature allowing our readers to post their
comments on line and you are welcome to say what you think about this
statement ;=) .

Eric

BTW, this story had been peer-reviewed.

[1] http://xmlfr.org/listes/xml-tech/2001/01/0254.html
> 
> Mike Kay
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list