XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?

Subject: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?
From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:06:52 +0200
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Hi Oren.
>I almost dismissed what you said here as a simple upbeat view point until I
>actually thought about it and realised it was quite a novel requirement,
>and a very shrewed statement, that anything implimented in the XSL Rec
>would have to go into the XQL Rec.

>I love the idea, but can you see the XQL community going for it?
>(remembering that we have some very big, very conservative players
>regarding XQL as their "home turf").

I don't think it is a novel notion. In
http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/1999/03/quest/index3.html XQL is clearly
described as an extension of the XSL transformational part. I didn't find a
formal requirements document for XQL, if there is such a thing, but I assume
that compatibility with XSL would appear in such a document if and when it
is written.

Share & Enjoy,

    Oren Ben-Kiki

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

Current Thread