[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Michael Kay wrote:
If it's true that $s rules the development of the specs (XSLT etc) more than anything else, then that's a very sad state of affairs IMHO.
Tobi
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)
Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:50:21 +0100 |
Michael Kay wrote:
But they have to pay the price of vastly increased complexity in the specification (and one assumes in the text books that will follow).
If they were paying, either for the specs or for the products, then they might have more ability to influence the outcome...
If it's true that $s rules the development of the specs (XSLT etc) more than anything else, then that's a very sad state of affairs IMHO.
Tobi
-- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [design question], Jeni Tennison | Thread | RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Michael Kay |
[xsl] [design question], TP | Date | Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, David Carlisle |
Month |