>>Just some points of clarification:
>> 1. Am I correct is saying, what you
are talking about is of more use for 
>> those using XSLT 2.0?

>>2. As far as
sorting is concerned, this saves having a second sort, but 
>>aside from the
performance benefit, there is not much you gain?

>>Basically, I am trying to
understand how useful this is to those of us 
>>stuck with XSLT 1.x.

On
second thought, it looks like XPath1.0 doesn't have a rich set of date
functions when compared to XPath2.0. 

I haven't tested the use of full date
format CCYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS in XSLT1.0 and XPath1.0 , it might be more trouble
than it's worth if you
are using XSLT 1.0/XPath 1.0 since there are not many
date/time functions in XPath1.0.

So, you might as well use the original
format suggested YYYY-MM-DD
_____________________________________________________________________________
_______
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com