Subject: Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ? From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 21:31:36 -0500 |
James K. Tauber wrote: > > My feeling on the issue is that a spec be developed for tree addressing > patterns that serves the needs of both XPointers and XSL patterns. Such a > spec could stand apart (but be normative to) both XLink and XSL. I agree completely. Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "You have the wrong number." "Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?" "No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man" XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Patrice Bonhomme | Thread | Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Pasqualino \"Titto\" |
Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Paul Prescod |
Month |