> Sebastian wrote:
> I *was* joking, you know...

Yes, I do know you were joking.  :)  I was using your very real reasons to make
a point:  no, we don't want to use msxml.dll, but it seems we have to.

> you have me at a disadvantage here, because I cannot see why you care
> what language something is written in. I can see why you 
> might dislike 
> Java, but if I offered you one written in Fortran, is that OK?

Using a parser written in C++ is an engineering *requirement*, not a preference.

> unless I mistake, there are no C++ implementations of an XSL engine
> conforming to the current draft.

There are at least two Java implementations that are kept up-to-date and plenty
more written in a handful of other languages.  Aside from the msxml.dll, there
are several C++ XML parsers written by industry leaders, but, sadly these do not
implement XSL(T) - yet they have Java counterparts that do and no immediate
plans to implement XSL(T) in the C++ versions.  It begs the question:  why is
the C++ community being ignored when it comes to XSL(T)?

-s


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