On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 02:12:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Bill Blough wrote: > > > Probably so. And while it's an intriguing idea to think about, in my opinion > > it defeats the purpose, since xalan is an xlst implementation that provides an > > alternative to libxslt. > > I think I wasn't clear enough in my suggestion wording. I mean > reimplement the libxslt approach for fixing this in libxalan-c rather > than integrating libxslt into libxalan-c. Ah, I see what you mean. Sure, that's probably a good way to go about it. I just don't think it's likely to happen in time to fix it for Jessie. For that matter, I'm not sure it *needs* fixing at all, though I agree that it would be a better user experience if it were fixed. I'm just not sure that it's as serious as it's made out to be. You can do bad things with any programming language. But quite frankly, I'm not sure if that's a call I can/should make. > > PS: I'm subscribed. Sorry about that- wrong button. Regards, Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature