Subject: Re: CSS + behavior vs. XSL (was: EcmaScript, gone?) From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:35:04 +0100 |
Paul Prescod wrote: > W3C members have nothing to do with this "long term strategy." Glargggl (french onomatopoeia expressing shock and breathlessness...) I thought, due to my terrible ignorance, that XML XSL XLL and others were handled by W3C working groups and that W3C working groups are created by a vote of the members of the W3C. I even thought that W3C members can say no to a proposed recommandation saying "drop it and drop all work on this item". God, I even believed that w3c members pay for that and that w3c does AC meetings so w3c members can directly express their opinions. But maybe all the requests for votes I keep in my w3c folder are just a dream and maybe the "no" answer we issued once is just an hallucination :-) If my memory is good enough, I even saw a MS "no" on SMIL... > Either way, you can do what you need to do through scripting. BTW and FYI, we are not doing what will be able to do XSL through scripting. We're about *now* to do the same *without* any line of scripting. > Everything I touch turns into Python. Well, Midas did the same with gold... </Daniel> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: CSS + behavior vs. XSL (was: E, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: CSS + behavior vs. XSL (was: E, Paul Prescod |
Re: FW: XSL - Loss to braille style, Paul Prescod | Date | Who can have qualifiers in XSL?, Steve Dahl |
Month |