> various FP languages and some with a C/C++ language base.  On the other
> hand, XSL-T 2.0 is as good as still-born (to quote a blog by Elliotte Rusty
> Harold) given that there are few if any C++ based XSL-T processors that
> approach anywhere near the Gold Standard XSL-T 2.0 processor that is Saxon
> for Java (and its .Net translation).

Can you link to that quote, because I can find where he's said that in
relation to the lack of a processor written in C++?

> - There are no compelling reasons for business investment in alternative
> XSL-T implementations

IBM and Intel now have XSLT 2.0 processors, so they must have had a
compelling reason.

> - XML processing libraries for C/C++ are disparate; where is XOM for C++
for
> instance?

XOM is written by Elliotte Rusty Harold, so the above quote would be
strange if it were correct.

> - I'm clueless; please add your input

Could it just be that the world has moved on from C++?



--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/