> I hate to continue this mire, but really have to wonder what you're all so
> upset about.

If the page had said XSL was a load of rubbish and not worth the time
spent on it, then I would not have objected (I would not have agreed
either, but life is too short to complain about every web page with which
I don't agree).

But the page was structured mainly at objecting to XSL based on the
syntax used in a coupleof examples. But the `XSL' quoted was not
correct by any WC draft or implementation that I know of. So their
entire attack was not based on personal opinion but on provably
invalid assumptions.

I just asked then to correct their XSL. I assume that they will still
claim that xmlscript is better than XSL, fair enough that is their
right.

David


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