Re: Obstacles (?) to XSLT 2.0 in C++
> various FP languages and some with a C/C++ language base. On the other > hand, XSL-T 2.0 is as good as still-born (to quote a blog by Elliotte Rusty > Harold) given that there are few if any C++ based XSL-T processors that > approach anywhere near the Gold Standard XSL-T 2.0 processor that is Saxon > for Java (and its .Net translation). Can you link to that quote, because I can find where he's said that in relation to the lack of a processor written in C++? > - There are no compelling reasons for business investment in alternative > XSL-T implementations IBM and Intel now have XSLT 2.0 processors, so they must have had a compelling reason. > - XML processing libraries for C/C++ are disparate; where is XOM for C++ for > instance? XOM is written by Elliotte Rusty Harold, so the above quote would be strange if it were correct. > - I'm clueless; please add your input Could it just be that the world has moved on from C++? -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
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