Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:47:17 -0500
> > A robust, versatile XML to HTML converter [that can be used as a
> > plug-in for a server or browser].
> I already use XSLT very successfully for this. Why would I want
> to use a specialized Ada tool? The XSLT I use is embedded in
> Internet Explorer. Works great.
XML would make it easier for me (and others) to maintain my (their)
information--but not if I (we) also have to maintain an HTML version.
XML would make the data easier to use and more useful for people who
have browsers that can handle it. But it is not acceptable for me
to tell everyone else, "Since you you don't have one of <list of browsers>,
you can not access this information."
That's just as bad, in my opinion, as telling them "I write in Basque
because it's easier for me. The fact that you can't read it is not my
If you're not convinced, try "C" or "APL" instead of "Basque."
On The Other Hand, I understand others may not feel the way I do. So the
question is, do enough people feel that way to make the converter worth doing?