Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> I don't think XSL in its current form is designed to do
> this, and the requirements for the "real" XSL suggest that
> it's not even heading in this direction.

That's true, but I think that it will only take a small proprietary
extension to make XML->XML transformations quite doable. I base this on my
belief that any industrial-strength style language is going to be
sufficiently powerful to do any transformation that a person could need.
All you need is a set of flow objects for each of the XML constructs. I
think that Jade demonstrates this fact quite well.

In other words, if you already know XSL, I don't think it will make sense
to go out and learn Java/SAXON or C/LTXML just because what you want to do
is not within the XSL specification. They are just as "non-standard" as an
XSL-ish transformation language will be.

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Three things trust above all else: Your knowledge of your craft
That someone turns a profit, and that you will get the shaft
http://www.geezjan.org/humor/computers/threes.html


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