• AT (unregistered) in reply to Ilyak
    Ilyak:
    XSLT is a functional (monadic, I'd say) programming language that takes a XML of some structure and produces another XML.

    XSLT functions are called 'templates', and they are either called directly by name, or indirectly by using pattern-matching (feature available in a lot of more high-end functional languages).

    XSLT uses award-winning XPath as its expression language, which permits math, string operations (rudimendary, I have to admit) and DOM querying in a very easy and powerful way.

    Thus each template operates on one element of input XML, directly, and all of the input DOM tree, via XPath queries.

    Each template can output any number of XML subtrees and also call other templates, making the language turing compatible. There are variables, for-loops, condition statements. Any questions?

    Yes, my good pedant: Why do you believe XSLT produces only XML?

  • Hans (unregistered) in reply to Ilyak
    XSLT uses award-winning XPath as its expression language, which permits math, string operations (rudimendary, I have to admit) and DOM querying in a very easy and powerful way.

    I'm so happy that XPath won an award. Awards bring sexy friends, money, and even music!

    http://www.vimeo.com/2363883

  • nitehawk (unregistered)

    He should be given a prize for extreme cleverness, then promptly be lynched.

  • Oliver Hallam (unregistered)

    Of course, you can do much prettier stuff with XSLT's trendy cousin, XQuery:

    XQuery Raytracer

  • IV (unregistered) in reply to Philevans
    Philevans:
    Dear lord! Someone else who understands what XSL is!

    The number of times that I've tried to explain this to someone, only to be met by a blank stare and a questioning "fun-shu-null . . . ?"

    Really? I get the opposite - "Oh, yeah, [C/C++/Java/VB/etc.] has functions." People kind of assume that is what I mean, which means that when I try to explain that they have the wrong idea of "functional", they tend to brush me off as being less educated.

  • nonny nonny (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Back in 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which, I demonstrated how to steal real money from folks who would view my web page with scripting enabled.

    Holy crap, so that's why my wallet kept getting lighter and lighter!

    Joke's on you though: I fill it with Canadian Tire money.

  • Duodecimal (unregistered) in reply to RobertoDellaTerra
    RobertoDellaTerra:
    Nice. Reminds me of the days we let our 286 PC run all night just to zoom in on some Mandelbrot detail. :)

    I see what you did there.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to SCB
    SCB:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    Back in 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which, I demonstrated how to steal real money from folks who would view my web page
    Sorry my friend but if you don't have a proof of concept you're just talking shit.

    How about:

    <html> <body> <script> document.write("send me some money") </script> </body> <html>

    You can't fool me! I'm not sending you any money until you can PROVE you're from Nigeria.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to jonnyq
    jonnyq:
    XSLT is wordy and hard to write. I've seen other attempts at XML-based templating languages and they're all equally ugly. I'd vote for using XSLT for templating or don't use XML for it at all.

    I second the motion! Let's not use XML at all!

  • (cs)

    90% of the uses of XML are wasteful

    SOAP vs Ice (more usable derivative of CORBA, from ZeroC) ....

    SOAP: "Hey Everybody! Let's convert all these numeric values to text, wrap them in text, then send them across the network where they will have to be extracted from the parsed text and converted back into binary!"

    ICE: "Convert it to network byte order*, send it, convert it back from network byte order*"

    • Which can be simply the identity operation on some platforms, on other platforms it's just rearranging the byte positions
  • (cs)
    On the first question, duh, don't use an empty stylesheet, there's no much reason for it anyway.

    There is plenty of use for an "identity" transform. As in "I have to supply a transform, but I don't want to actually change my XML. So I need an identity transform."

    It would be convenient if the "identity transform" were trivial to write.

  • Capt. Obvious (unregistered) in reply to IV
    IV:
    ple kind of assume that is what I mean, which means that when I try to explain that they have the wrong idea of "functional", they tend to brush me off as being less educated.
    Due to a hole in my education, I never really learned about functional languages (I understand what they are, in a mile-high, dictionary definition kind of way.) I'm trying to rectify that. Absent learning LISP/Haskell and stumbling around, are there any books that cover the concepts. Specifically, some things that I'm having trouble understanding:

    A function (G) can return a vector (X,Y,X) Another function (F) might take that as input. How do I know the datatype when I say F(G(whatever)). Does the compiler check it. What does that do if I want to choose F and G independently using switch statements, but F(G()) is valid, and M(N()) is valid, but F(N()) isn't and M(G()) isn't?

    What about functions that cannot help but have memory. For instance, a function that returns a bool indicating whether something is on the far side of a boundary. But, the boundary is non-trivial, and within the boundary, you want consider it on the same side it was when it entered?

    There are probably other questions I had, but those are some I ran into when last I tried to teach myself the basics.

  • (cs) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    IV:
    ple kind of assume that is what I mean, which means that when I try to explain that they have the wrong idea of "functional", they tend to brush me off as being less educated.
    Due to a hole in my education, I never really learned about functional languages (I understand what they are, in a mile-high, dictionary definition kind of way.) I'm trying to rectify that. Absent learning LISP/Haskell and stumbling around, are there any books that cover the concepts. Specifically, some things that I'm having trouble understanding:

    A function (G) can return a vector (X,Y,X) Another function (F) might take that as input. How do I know the datatype when I say F(G(whatever)). Does the compiler check it. What does that do if I want to choose F and G independently using switch statements, but F(G()) is valid, and M(N()) is valid, but F(N()) isn't and M(G()) isn't?

    What about functions that cannot help but have memory. For instance, a function that returns a bool indicating whether something is on the far side of a boundary. But, the boundary is non-trivial, and within the boundary, you want consider it on the same side it was when it entered?

    There are probably other questions I had, but those are some I ran into when last I tried to teach myself the basics.

    a function that has to pierce the stateless functional to stateful imperative boundry (such as input/output functions, etc) are modeled as something called Monads.... it's all highfalutin mathematical theory that I never found very useful.

    I just say that a stateless system is interacting with a stateful one and leave it at that.

  • Andrew Olson (unregistered)

    Mandelbrot Set you’re a Rorschach Test on fire You’re a day-glo pterodactyl You’re a heart-shaped box of springs and wire You’re one badass fucking fractal And you’re just in time to save the day Sweeping all our fears away You can change the world in a tiny way

    http://www.jonathancoulton.com/songdetails/Mandelbrot%20Set

  • Max (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    So what's your theory? Someone went to all the work of making the NoScript browser plugin, which is downloaded by over 600,000 people per week, just so we could all talk shit?
    You clearly didn't read my original post. I said proof of concept or you're just talking shit. The existence of NoScript is hardly a proof of concept for your 133t hax0ring skillz, is it? So, are you going to put your money where your mouth is? Just a proof of concept, it's hardly difficult assuming you've done what you say you have.
    No, it isn't difficult at all. However, there exist people in law enforcement, judges, and juries who are not shall we say net savvy. Some of them have in the past expressed their opinion that it is a crime for me to teach you how to commit a crime.

    If you want to hire me to penetration test your web site, we can talk. Of course you'll have to prove it is really your site. And, you probably can't afford me.

    Why would I want to afford someone who wastes time talking smack on this site? Even if your claims are true, you are still talking smack. Go away.

  • TheCanuck (unregistered) in reply to Flash

    wrong: "I'll let other work out the issues..."

    right: "I'll let others work out the issues..."

  • (cs) in reply to Andy Gottit

    I've seen some cool tricks, but that one really takes the cake... it reminds me of the ray tracer written entirely in postscript that someone sent to our plotter at WPI way back. One of the admins noticed that the printer was taking hours to do a very small (only a few kb) printjob, but since it was late at night they just let it keep going... and a few hours later out popped a nicely raytraced picture of the standard checkerboard-boxes-and-mirrorball.

    Andy Gottit:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    Back in 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which, I demonstrated how to steal real money from folks who would view my web page
    Sorry my friend but if you don't have a proof of concept you're just talking shit.
    So what's your theory? Someone went to all the work of making the NoScript browser plugin, which is downloaded by over 600,000 people per week, just so we could all talk shit?
    The existence of a plugin to stop it does not mean it existed in the first place. Also, proof please. Else you just sound like a wacko, please put your tinfoil hat back on...

    Addendum (2009-04-29 13:38):

    Kazan:
    thank you for proving our point for us you ignoramous.
    ahahahaha
  • Tent (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    I disclosed it responsibly at the time. It is very well known by most everyone in the business, except perhaps you.

    Ah yes, the good old "Emperor's new clothes" style argument. If you can't clearly see the truth of my argument, then you must not be cool enough.

    If you don't know the secret handshake we use to represent the Vulnerability That Must Not Be Named, then we simply can't discuss it. I'm not really sure how you render a handshake to ASCII anyway. Maybe with XSLT?

    I can empty your bank account, rape your mother, and kill your dog just by having you open a web site with javascript enabled. Nuff said.
    I have to say, that not everyone is going to fall for that little banner on the side where you have to click 10 times before the other guy does 10 pullups for a free Xbox You might fall for it, but I doubt anyone else will.

    Wait a sec, Xbox...? OH SWEET! clicks

    Regardless, if you really think that just by visiting a website you can lose all of your money, your a complete retard.

  • Confused (unregistered) in reply to TheCanuck
    TheCanuck:
    wrong: "I'll let other work out the issues..."

    right: "I'll let others work out the issues..."

    No, no. That was just an example of Flash being lazy.

  • rp (unregistered) in reply to Ilyak

    Produces another XML (document)?

    Well, not necessarily. It's hard to predict the output structure of XSLT-produced documents. This is one of the things that makes XSLT difficult.

  • Isaac Eiland-Hall (unregistered)

    folks, Andy Gotit = "and he got it"

    He's a troll, or at least just joking around with you for fun (which, to a troll, is the same thing).

    Oy.

    Also, Mandlebrot rocks, and never gets old. :) Neat trick.

  • (cs) in reply to kastein
    kastein:
    Addendum (2009-04-29 13:38):
    Kazan:
    thank you for proving our point for us you ignoramous.
    ahahahaha

    yes obviously since i made a typo from force of habit of the common -ous suffix in the English language....

  • (cs) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    A function (G) can return a vector (X,Y,X) Another function (F) might take that as input. How do I know the datatype when I say F(G(whatever)). Does the compiler check it. What does that do if I want to choose F and G independently using switch statements, but F(G()) is valid, and M(N()) is valid, but F(N()) isn't and M(G()) isn't?

    You do realize the construct you described is faulty, correct? No offense is meant, but the construct you are describing is literally nonsense. No such functions exist, so you shouldn't be trying to construct them.

    A language with dynamic typing would try to convert type N() to type G() so that F can be called on it. It would probably fail with a runtime error.

    Strongly typed languages don't use switch statements. They use a similar construct called "pattern matching", where so-called "type constructors" are used as cases. So given a data type TheSetAandBandC = A | B | C, you can match against A or B or C in a function:

    isA :: TheSetAandBandC -> Bool isA A = true isA _ = false

    Here, A and B and C are type constructors, which construct values in the type TheSetAandBandC. (So this is like an enumerated type, which I believe you can switch/case on in C++/Java). Anyway, if you tried your construct in Haskell, you would get a compile time error.

    What about functions that cannot help but have memory. For instance, a function that returns a bool indicating whether something is on the far side of a boundary. But, the boundary is non-trivial, and within the boundary, you want consider it on the same side it was when it entered?

    Again, it depends on the language. Haskell does not have functions which "cannot help but have memory", because of lazy evaluation. Unless you specifically memoize a function result (a runtime feature, not a language feature), it will be recomputed on demand (and only when demanded). This is not so onerous as it sounds, because of the parenthetical.

    (typed) Functional programming is less about applying steps in a sequence than it is about identifying relationships between type constructors and letting the compiler figure the steps out (the semantics are easy enough to remember if you want to do it on your own, but why bother unless you have an actual performance problem?)

  • Mike5 (unregistered)

    What sort of crap is this? It doesn't even zoom!

    Seriously, though. Truly awesome.

  • (cs)

    Test on Mac OS X Leopard:

    Safari 4 - Runs but elongated and ragged on right side

    Opera 9.64 - Runs but very elongated and ragged

    Firefox 3.0.9 - Runs and appears almost correct except for slight misalignment toward right side

  • Duke of New York (unregistered)

    How long before someone starts a company to market XML manipulation as a general-purpose platform?

  • Zer0 (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    So what's your theory? Someone went to all the work of making the NoScript browser plugin, which is downloaded by over 600,000 people per week, just so we could all talk shit?
    You clearly didn't read my original post. I said proof of concept or you're just talking shit. The existence of NoScript is hardly a proof of concept for your 133t hax0ring skillz, is it? So, are you going to put your money where your mouth is? Just a proof of concept, it's hardly difficult assuming you've done what you say you have.
    No, it isn't difficult at all. However, there exist people in law enforcement, judges, and juries who are not shall we say net savvy. Some of them have in the past expressed their opinion that it is a crime for me to teach you how to commit a crime.

    If you want to hire me to penetration test your web site, we can talk. Of course you'll have to prove it is really your site. And, you probably can't afford me.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA. You couldn't afford me laughing at the thought of you stealing a single penny from anyone with moderate technical competance.

    Yes, that laugh is considered a consultation. Be expecting a bill.

    XML: cool XSLT: evil SOAP: who invented this crap?

  • Buffled (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Croc Dundee:
    Yeah, XML tales "full control" of your browser. How's that foil hat doing, protecting your brainwaves from *them*, I hope.
    Back in 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which, I demonstrated how to steal real money from folks who would view my web page with scripting enabled. At the time, at least 95% of web sites were vulnerable. It was considered "too hard to fix" and as of today, about 60% of web sites are still unfixed (with ignorant luzers producing more every day). So, of course, I surf with scripting turned off, as I would expect anyone else who knows what's going on would do.
    Link? Example? Explanation? How can you gain access to real money with javascript, unless you mean XSS attacks crafted against specific servics?

    Outside of that - perhaps example that works in a browser created in this century?

    Didn't think so.

  • Buffled (unregistered) in reply to Tent
    Tent:
    Regardless, if you really think that just by visiting a website you can lose all of your money, your a complete retard.
    No matter how valid your point is, never ever ever insult somebody's intelligence and make a grammatical error in the same sentence. EVER.
  • nonny nonny (unregistered) in reply to Buffled
    Buffled:
    No matter how valid your point is, never ever ever insult somebody's intelligence and make a grammatical error in the same sentence. EVER.

    Or reply to a post without first reading through the whole thread.

  • nobody (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Back in 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which, I demonstrated how to steal real money from folks who would view my web page with scripting enabled.
    The Internet is serious business.
  • meh (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    So what's your theory? Someone went to all the work of making the NoScript browser plugin, which is downloaded by over 600,000 people per week, just so we could all talk shit?
    You clearly didn't read my original post. I said proof of concept or you're just talking shit. The existence of NoScript is hardly a proof of concept for your 133t hax0ring skillz, is it? So, are you going to put your money where your mouth is? Just a proof of concept, it's hardly difficult assuming you've done what you say you have.
    No, it isn't difficult at all. However, there exist people in law enforcement, judges, and juries who are not shall we say net savvy. Some of them have in the past expressed their opinion that it is a crime for me to teach you how to commit a crime.

    If you want to hire me to penetration test your web site, we can talk. Of course you'll have to prove it is really your site. And, you probably can't afford me.

    Steve Gibson? Is that you?

  • Mr Teddy Bear (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    So what's your theory? Someone went to all the work of making the NoScript browser plugin, which is downloaded by over 600,000 people per week, just so we could all talk shit?
    In a word: sure.

    Paranoia is pretty much defined by the fact that there is, in fact, no real threat. Can't blame people for catering to the crazies of the world. ;-)

  • titter.com (unregistered) in reply to Kazan
    Kazan:
    Trolls 1 - rest of posters 0
    People who care - 0.
  • Frenchier than thou (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Kazan:
    Andy Gottit:
    Croc Dundee:
    Yeah, XML tales "full control" of your browser. How's that foil hat doing, protecting your brainwaves from *them*, I hope.
    Back in 1998 or 1999, I don't remember which, I demonstrated how to steal real money from folks who would view my web page with scripting enabled. At the time, at least 95% of web sites were vulnerable. It was considered "too hard to fix" and as of today, about 60% of web sites are still unfixed (with ignorant luzers producing more every day). So, of course, I surf with scripting turned off, as I would expect anyone else who knows what's going on would do.

    XML or not, with scripting turned off, that's how it looks. What, you think I made that up?

    since you're such a security genius who found a vulnerability that nobody else on the planet has ever found or written about how about to do the responsible thing and tell us what it is.

    I disclosed it responsibly at the time. It is very well known by most everyone in the business, except perhaps you.

    and me.

  • Jeremy Friesner (unregistered)

    Or this: http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/Content/rosy-lipped-batfish-wilms-1144526-xl.jpg

  • Americium (unregistered)
    RealWTF:
    But regardless of your opinions on XSLT, I'm certain you'll have a new appreciation after seeing what magic it can work on a boring old piece of XML. Even if it's variables are write-once and cannot vary.

    For what its worth, there are lots of functional programming languages which have immutable "variables" (although functional languages use the term "value" instead). Programming without mutable state hardly sounds like programming at all, but once you get the hang of it, you can write terse, mathematically beautiful programs. Every programmer should learn at least one functional programming language, such as Haskell, Lisp, OCaml, F#, or Erlang.

    I disagree with your understanding of functional languages. They do support mutable values (results). Recursive functions provide this feature.

    In fact, fractals are among the best examples of recursive functions that vary as they re-input their values.

    This doesn't even consider the data as program model. Functional languages can build & execute new programs based on the current input.

  • Andy Goittt (unregistered)

    RAHRAHRAHRAHRAHRAH! You all suck.

  • lmb (unregistered)

    I demand that Firefox's engine be optimized for this! Finally a useful benchmark.

  • (cs) in reply to Ilyak

    I can write a web page that, if visited with scripts enabled, implodes the universe. alert(1/0);

    P.S. Well, I don't understand how people who dislike XSLT for its 'ugliness' can ever touch something so ugly as PHP or C++.
    The less than and greater than operators have to be escaped. 'nuff said.

  • Anonymous Turdhead (unregistered) in reply to Hans

    I always assumed the "raw" xsl language description was meant to be the output from a parser into a compiler. If I had to work with it for more than an afternoon, I would create some sort of shortcut syntax to make it easier. I'm sure plenty of people have done this already.

  • (cs) in reply to Andy Goittt
    Andy Goittt:
    *snip#
    Spell much?
  • Jerome Baum (unregistered) in reply to lolwtf
    lolwtf:
    The (...) greater than operators have to be escaped. 'nuff said.

    Well then, somebody who really knows his shit.

  • Lars (unregistered) in reply to lolwtf
    The less than and greater than operators have to be escaped. 'nuff said.
    Actually, just the less-than operator (and ampersand).
  • Lars (unregistered) in reply to Mike5
  • (cs) in reply to Americium
    Americium:
    RealWTF:
    But regardless of your opinions on XSLT, I'm certain you'll have a new appreciation after seeing what magic it can work on a boring old piece of XML. Even if it's variables are write-once and cannot vary.

    For what its worth, there are lots of functional programming languages which have immutable "variables" (although functional languages use the term "value" instead). Programming without mutable state hardly sounds like programming at all, but once you get the hang of it, you can write terse, mathematically beautiful programs. Every programmer should learn at least one functional programming language, such as Haskell, Lisp, OCaml, F#, or Erlang.

    I disagree with your understanding of functional languages. They do support mutable values (results). Recursive functions provide this feature.

    To the GP: the only one confusing variables and values is you (and most of the population, heh). This confusion stems from confusion about elementary school algebra. "Variables" do not vary. They are merely syntactic markers for "real" values, like 1, pi, blue, and so on. Universally quantified sentences are only true if the unquantified sentence is true when the sentence is true of each value. So "ForAll x, x is a number" is not true of the values I presented, since blue is a color. You want variables to be names for specific values. But that's exactly backwards. Blue already has a name.

    Modern functional programming recognizes this fact, and uses the type system to create value constructors, instead of using what you call "variables". We might define the colors of the rainbow as:

    data Color = Red | Orange | Yellow | Green | Blue | Indigo | Violet

    Each of these is an opaque token of color, which functions can act on.

    data Defcon = Defcon1 | Defcon2 | Defcon3 | Defcon4 | Defcon5

    colorForDefconLevel :: Defcon -> Color colorForDefconLevel Defcon1 = Red colorForDefconLevel Defcon2 = Orange colorForDefconLevel Defcon3 = Yellow colorForDefconLevel Defcon4 = Green colorForDefconLevel Defcon5 = Blue

    For a more concrete example, consider:

    type Name = String type Wage = Integer type Hours = Integer

    data Employee = Employee Name Wage Hours

    name :: Employee -> String name (Employee name wage hours) = name

    yearlyWage :: Employee -> Integer yearlyWage (Employee name wage hours) = wage * hours

    I had a heck of a time figuring out what x = x + 1 was supposed to mean when I first read K&R, since it is never actually true. Then again I was 11. But the point remains. The following is true of the factorial function, in addition to defining it:

    fac 0 = 1 fac n = n * fac (n - 1)

    This idea applies to the Employee example too.

    This leads to big differences in the practice of programming. If you want to understand what a procedural program/method is doing, you need to mentally emulate a state machine. If you want to understand what a functional program/function does, you just read the definition. This get kind of mind blowing when you consider the full effect of the Howard-Curry Isomorphism theorem, which says that every functional program is a constructive proof, a fact which strongly confirms our interpretation of function definition an assertion about a function and vice-versa.

    To see why that may be, let's say we call fac on 3. Evaluating the function means substituting and evaluating subexpressions:

    fac 3 = 3 * fac (3 - 1) = 3 * fac (2) = 3 * 2 * fac (2 - 1) = 3 * 2 * fac 1 = 3 * 2 * 1 * fac (1 - 1) = 3 * 2 * 1 * fac (0) = 3 * 2 * 1 * 1 = 6

    That is to say, taking our definition of the factorial as an "axiom", we used logically valid rules of inference to conclude that fac 3 = 6.

    In fact, fractals are among the best examples of recursive functions that vary as they re-input their values.

    This doesn't even consider the data as program model. Functional languages can build & execute new programs based on the current input.

    Every program amounts to parsing a data structure, applying a function, and returning a value.

    What do you think C compilers do, and how do you think they work? This isn't a language issue. On the other hand, the functional model does distill the content of the assertion that "every program amounts to parsing..." into easily and formally verifiable steps, via monadic (and other) combinators.

  • db (unregistered) in reply to Lars
  • laoreet (unregistered) in reply to Andy Gottit
    Andy Gottit:
    Anonymous:
    Andy Gottit:
    I disclosed it responsibly at the time. It is very well known by most everyone in the business, except perhaps you.

    Ah yes, the good old "Emperor's new clothes" style argument. If you can't clearly see the truth of my argument, then you must not be cool enough.

    If you don't know the secret handshake we use to represent the Vulnerability That Must Not Be Named, then we simply can't discuss it. I'm not really sure how you render a handshake to ASCII anyway. Maybe with XSLT?

    I can empty your bank account, rape your mother, and kill your dog just by having you open a web site with javascript enabled. Nuff said.

    I would be very impressed if you could even find out what my bank account is through my browser. I dont use my computer for banking stuff, therefor you cant find any information about my bank, credit card or even phone number or adress on it. And ISPs in sweden wont give you my adress if you ask for it. Nowadays, thanks to draconian laws about piracy, they dont even save the information about who had what IP when, so even if they wanted to, they couldn't tell you. ;) As far as my mother goes, she needs to get laid, so you are welcome to her. And I never had a dog, so that would be an impressive feat indeed. ;)

  • (cs)

    Copyright 1992,2007???????

  • tonicblue (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    </sigh>

    Sorry, you didn't close your sigh tag

Leave a comment on “Stupid Coding Tricks: XSLT Mandelbrot”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article