Subject: Venting From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 16:04:49 -0600 |
I am probably wasting my time but I want to point out that the current organization of the XSL specification is VERY CONFUSING to my users, students and readers and extremely FRUSTRATING to me. There is a generalized transformation language. There is a formatting DTD. They will probably work beautifully together someday but they do NOT BELONG IN THE SAME SPECIFICATION any more than XSL and XLink do. I know we've been over this before and it is probably not useful to start a long thread of "me toos" and "I agrees" but this is a fundamental flaw in the two languages that we know as XSL. Please put aside the political expediency of one spec. in favor of the clarity of two. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Question, Vun Kannon, David | Thread | Re: Venting, David LeBlanc |
Question, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: Searching the XSL DTD..., Lars Marius Garshol |
Month |