> In other words he wants to do string manipulations on unmarked up
> text. Furthermore, his output format is not XML, but LaTeX. Moertl is
> taking XSLT and using it to do exactly what it was designed not to
>do.
There is one subtile problem. Not all the text in this world
is marked up to 'the right degree' so that 'plain XSLT' can
handle it. And it would never be marked up to 'that' degree,
I think.
> This article is the rough equivalent of a review of giving a toaster
> oven a bad review because it won't wash dishes.
Not to mention that the article fights against the
old ghost of 'result tree fragment', which
is (finally?) fixed in recent XSLT paper
and have been discussed for ages on XSL-list.
The article is from XSLT newbie. However,
in the part devoted to "missing 'nuts and bolts'"
the 'newbie' repeats Mr. Levhental's rant
and Mr. Levhental is not a newbie.
Perhaps, you know ... there is ... something ...
... strange... with XSLT?
Rgds.Paul.
Original article.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/1/13/223854/606
Levhental's rant.
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/05/xsl/xslconsidered_1.html
Some stuff.
http://www.pault.com/X/search?subject=XSLT&op=articles
