Subject: Re: none From: Norman Walsh <ndw@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 06:45:49 -0500 |
/ John McClure <hypergrove@xxxxxxxxxxx> was heard to say: | Microsoft is one of those that implements XSL as (just!) a transformation | language, with the apparent idea that the formatting objects in HTML are | quite adequate for the time being. "For the time being", I agree with this | approach also, and would like to see the specs track to that, renaming XSL | into something more descriptive of its current transformation function. <vent> The XSL spec contains both a transformation language (one designed specifically for transformations required for presentation) and a vocabulary of formatting objects. How does the decision of an implementor to implement only part of a specification change the "current function" of a specification!? </vent> Not that I'll be the slightest bit surprised if we wind up producing two specs. Cheers, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@xxxxxxxxxx> | Imagine if every Thursday your http://nwalsh.com/ | shoes exploded if you tied them | the usual way. This happens to us | all the time with computers, and | nobody thinks of | complaining.--Jeff Raskin DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XSL, Didier PH Martin | Thread | [no subject], Chris Maden |
Problems with grafics and RTF, Joaquin Bravo | Date | modular stylesheets., Pawson, David |
Month |