On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Michael Kay<mike@s...> wrote:
>>
>> JVM byte-code or .NET IL code both are not processor-specific.
>> Fortunately, there is no need for XSLT byte-code :)
>
> I can't imagine anyone compiling XSLT to byte-code that doesn't need the
> support of a processor-specific runtime library, so the compiled code will
> inevitably be tied to a particular XSLT processor.
>

Yes, but it is still a huge difference from practical perspective to
need just two DLLs (the compiled XSLT library and the run-time support
library) as compared to an uncompiled XSLT library with more than 100
different stylesheet files, *and* the XSLT processor in its entirety.


-- 
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play

--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe@l...>
--~--