>  > > 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
> information--but not if I also have to maintain an HTML version.

You don't have to maintain an HTML version.  You convert from
XML to HTML with XSLT.

> 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."

You can do the conversion either on the server or at the browser.
In my case, this is a captive audience within the company, where
corporate dictates all this Microsoft software running on everyones
desktop so I can assume availability of Internet Explorer and keep
the conversion off the server.

> 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
> concern."
>
> If you're not convinced, try "C" or "APL" instead of "Basque."

But, that's the beauty of using XML.  There are so many tools already
for processing XML on either server or browser.  I'm just arguing that
an XML to HTML translater would not make a good Ada killer app because
it would be ignored.

>
> 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?
>

--
Terry Westley
[log in to unmask]