Dan Nicholson wrote: > 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?
There is no need, and LFS probably shouldn't puruse it any further. For myself, it was mostly getting a kick out of seeing the parsing happen in under a second, and knowing that I didn't need to have libxslt installed on my system to do it. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
