Joshua Allen 
> As someone who's invested quite a bit of energy running around giving
> developers talks on "writing portable XSLT", I will agree that even
> XSLT 1.0 is not guaranteed to be portable.  But most developers who
> I've talked to are surprised that "portable XSLT" is actually
> different from "XSLT 1.0".  So I hope we haven't given up on portable
> XSLT - sure there are warts, but this is version 1.0 right?  Surely
> nobody is suggesting that, since portability is not guaranteed
> in 1.0, we should just forget about it altogether?  Users really
> do care about portability, and I hope I haven't been wasting my time
> encouraging them..

I'd hope not too Joshua.

If your papers are not copyright, I'd love to see them on the web?

Regards DaveP

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