On Fri, September 27, 2013 11:57 am, Adam Retter wrote:
> After hearing Tony Graham's lightening talk at the XML Summer School I

Thank you for the timely reminder.  Slides, all five minutes' worth, now
at http://www.mentea.net/resources/after-libxslt.pdf (and linked to from
http://inasmuch.as/2013/09/27/is-there-life-after-libxslt-1/ and
http://www.mentea.net/resources.html).

Lauren Wood and Matt Biddulph helped start this cycle of the permathread
because they're interested in a libXSLT-replacement for Ruby in
particular.

...
> On 27 September 2013 11:50, Dr O'Neil Delpratt <oneil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Dear XSLT community,
>>
>> I have recently been looking at the possbilities of making XSLT 2.0/3.0
>> processor available to the C/C++ world.
>> At present there seems to be a real shortage or a lack of support for
>> anything greater than XSLT 1.0 (i.e libxslt, Xalan, etc).
>>
>> The benefits are clearly to be seen: having a fullfledged XSLT 2.0 in C
>> would be great for the PHP/Python/Ruby/... communities, who currently
>> rely
>> on libxslt.

The other side of it, IMO, is that the processor needs to read and write
libXML2-compatible trees so all the code that (for anything more than
file-file transformation) currently produces the inputs and consumes the
output from libXSLT (or from a language binding to libXSLT) can 'just
work' until such time as code can be rewritten to use any superior
'native' interface of the processor.

Regards,


Tony Graham                                   tgraham@xxxxxxxxxx
Consultant                                 http://www.mentea.net
Mentea       13 Kelly's Bay Beach, Skerries, Co. Dublin, Ireland
 --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
    XML, XSL-FO and XSLT consulting, training and programming
       Chair, Print and Page Layout Community Group @ W3C