Subject: Re: Someone bashing XSL From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:11:33 +0100 (BST) |
> I hate to continue this mire, but really have to wonder what you're all so > upset about. If the page had said XSL was a load of rubbish and not worth the time spent on it, then I would not have objected (I would not have agreed either, but life is too short to complain about every web page with which I don't agree). But the page was structured mainly at objecting to XSL based on the syntax used in a coupleof examples. But the `XSL' quoted was not correct by any WC draft or implementation that I know of. So their entire attack was not based on personal opinion but on provably invalid assumptions. I just asked then to correct their XSL. I assume that they will still claim that xmlscript is better than XSL, fair enough that is their right. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Someone bashing XSL, Jonathan Borden | Thread | Re: Someone bashing XSL, David Carlisle |
Re: Pattern for attribute matching, Paul W. Abrahams | Date | Re: Someone bashing XSL, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |