[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: W3C-transformation language petition
Subject: Re: W3C-transformation language petition From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 12:01:38 +0100 |
Chris Maden wrote: > "Is this something we can add to CSS without complicating the syntax?" > If so, then they should add it. I don't like this "they" and I don't like this "should". Can you please tell us why a more complex syntax should block any extension ? CSS _exists_ and has its own life. All your speech has the same flavor: " let CSS die slowly ". CSS *users* (you seem to forget that CSS has more users in the world than XSL does...) need and want CSS extensions. CSS+FP WG members are also proposing extensions on their own. CSS syntax can be more complicated. Its complexity will still be 1/100 of XSL complexity. For the moment, it seems that CSS syntax is much more widely accepted by *users* than XSL syntax. Is there any web site with XSL *style* (not tranformations) sheets and more than 100000 hits per day ? > If not, XSL gives them the ability to say no. Not only "if not". XSL *always* gives me the ability to say no !-) </Daniel>, CSS+FP WG member, employee of a CSS user XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: W3C-transformation language pet, Chris Maden | Thread | W3C-transformation language petitio, Oren Ben-Kiki |
Re: xsl:lambda was RE: W3C-transfor, Guy_Murphy | Date | How to show the value of an attribu, Mario Christ |
Month |
Keywords