On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> If you are going to reinvent the ability to parse, then good luck. I've done >> <understatement>just a bit of C/C++ programming</understatement> in my career > > I know where you're coming from. I fully respect your abilities and > experience. > >> and I don't think you will be able to parse the book in a second unless you >> come >> up with an algorithm that is quite different from xsltproc. To do that >> reliably >> will take many times 20 seconds. > > It's already do-able. The code already exists. I will grant that it does > not yet account for everything that could be valid for XML, but I don't > think we need to do that for our purposes.
I've never understood the preference to rewrite something that's not libxslt/xsltproc. If the book sources are written in XSLT, then why not use something (libxslt) that is widely tested and probably already optimized? I just don't really see the need to reimplement an XSLT parser. Am I missing something? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
