Subject: Re: Splitting XSL From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:11:47 -0600 |
Jason Diamond wrote: > > All this would require of the XSL WG is a paragraph stating that section 2 of > the XSL spec can be referred to as XTL and section 3, XFL. Even if they didn't > want to do that, there's nothing stopping us from calling them that. Good point! Do we all agree that the physical organization of the specification is irrelevant? What we need is for the transformation and formatting languages to be a) separately named b) separately conformance tested And that the combination of the two should be called "XSL." I am going to suggest that although there are good reasons to ask for them to be completely separate specifications that instead we will leave that up to the WG. They know the politics of the situation. If we must have two different languages both specified in a spec called "XSL" then we can live with that. It isn't (much) different from the way that the XML specification details both instance syntax and DTD syntax. -- 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: Splitting XSL, Jason Diamond | Thread | RE: Splitting XSL, Didier PH Martin |
Re: Venting, Paul Prescod | Date | Splitting XSL, Oren Ben-Kiki |
Month |