• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Doc vs. Data
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:27:51 -0700
• In-reply-to: <p04330107bb0a7a3afdfd@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <p04330107bb0a7a3afdfd@[192.168.254.4]> <01dc01c32d46$589a8c70$6401a8c0@pcukmka> <m3n0grno1f.fsf@t...>

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> Are any of the open source XSLT processors clean enough to be
> plausibly forked? The only one I've spent any time exploring (Saxon)
> gave me shivers, it was so convoluted.

Really?  That wasn't my impression; I found the Saxon source
code to be quite well-organized and well-commented.
It's one of the few Java code bases I've seen that actually
has *useful* javadoc commentary.

I've gone spelunking in there a couple times (mostly out of
curiosity), and have generally been able to figure out what's
going on.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Doc vs. Data
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: Doc vs. Data
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: Doc vs. Data
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: Re: most contested area of xml schema interoperability?
• Previous by thread: RE: Doc vs. Data
• Next by thread: RE: Doc vs. Data
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread