[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: Splitting XSL
Subject: Re: Splitting XSL From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:18:27 +0000 |
Hi Paul. Ummm, no we're not all agreed. I don't see how item b) which will allow parser vendors to ship 100% XSL-T compliant products is in the benefit of the language. I understand how it may benefit you commercialy, but I don't see it as being of benefit to the long term interests of XSL. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/09/99 08:11:47 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: Splitting XSL [SNIP] Good point! Do we all agree that the physical organization of the specification is irrelevant? What we need is for the transformation and formatting languages to be a) separately named b) separately conformance tested And that the combination of the two should be called "XSL." [SNIP] XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Fw: Splitting XSL, Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | Carriage return and line feed, Suli Ding |
Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy |
Month |
Keywords