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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?, Joe Lapp |
Re: Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: W3C-transformation language pet, Simon St.Laurent |
Month |