Should we let XT fade away (Last Call)

(also posted on list4xt and xml-dev)

Almost one year after the launch of 4xt [1], I have thought I should ask
the question again.

I had been hoping that the effort of maintaining XT could be shared
between a team of developers using 4xt as their home (I made it clear
from the beginning that I couldn't take the full load on my shoulders).

This has not happened and most of what has been published during this
year on 4xt are "peripheral" developments that I have implemented.

During this past year, XT has begun to fade away as predicted [2] by
James Clark and many developers are moving to other implementations.

XT is missing a couple of important features (IMHO, at least keys and
namespaces nodes) that should be implemented and I had recently to
switch to SAXON for my examplotron that I couldn't implement using XT.

On the other hand, a new benchmark [4] published on XML.com shows that
XT is, by far, the fastest open source XSLT processor (for any
implementation language) and the only processor that seems to be able to
compete with Microsoft's implementation.

I think it's time, then, to ask the question again: 

   Should we let XT fade away 
   (and if not, is anyone willing to help) ?

Eric

[1] http://4xt.org
[2] http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=554
[3] http://examplotron.org/
[4] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/03/28/xsltmark/index.html
-- 
See you in San Jose for SD West:
http://cmp.bluedot.com/re/attendee/sdw/speakerPage.esp?speakerId=36534626
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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