Subject: RE: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: SVG 1.0 is now a W3C Recommendation From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:08:41 +0200 |
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David > Carlisle > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:54 AM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: SVG 1.0 is now a W3C > Recommendation > > > > Chris Bayes wrote: > > > I think that is a bit unfair. Microsoft was so early to adopt > > xsl technology they developed and released it while it was still > > at working draft stage. It was a very good version of the working > > draft spec. Where they went wrong was not uncluding their xslt > > version with ie5. But as they had jumped in at a very early stage > > and shipped systems that included the wd version they had to support > > it. They were also one of the first fully compliant xslt processors > > around for quite a while (Saxon was the first and xt was never > > fully implemented) > > > I think that's being unduly kind to Microsoft (a crime that can't go > unpunished:-) > > The IE5 "XSL" isn't really a good implementation of the December '98 WD > It has lots of extensions and the documentation makes no distinction > between what is in the draft and what isn't, but that's really only a > small point, what they really did wrong was take a draft that said Actually, it's not even an implementation of *any* working draft I could find. It's just similar. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: , David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: , Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: , David Carlisle | Date | RE: [xsl] XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 , Joerg Pietschmann |
Month |