|
Subject: Re: [xsl] Is there a reason for not using XSLT 2.0 as a default From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:15:38 GMT |
> The standard is now pretty stable, correct? That can't be guaranteed, XSLT 1.1 was just abandoned for example. I imagine that after this length of time the WG aren't keen to do any major redesign, but to assume stability at this stage is to assume that the public common process won't be taken seriously. That said, I'm using xslt2 more and more, but I'd written quite a lot of XSLT1 before that was finalised as well. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| RE: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, Pawson, David |
| RE: [xsl] Is there a reason for not, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] current context preceding, Joris Gillis |
| Month |