Subject: Re: Why transformation? From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 09:25:06 -0500 |
Daniel Glazman wrote: > > Paul Prescod wrote: > > > Presumably people who have > > looked at the issue more closely than I have decided that CSS's formatting > > model was not sufficient. > > Strange assumption, indeed. The CSS and XSL formatting models are currently under > harmonization and it seems quite impossible to harmonize two things if > there is a too big difference between them. I don't know how I could have stated this any more clearly, but: if CSS's model was sufficient, they would have just used CSS's model and there would have been no two things to harmonize, right? I didn't claim that CSS's formatting model was miles away from XSL's. I merely said that it *was not sufficient* (in the eyes of the people who decided not to use it). Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco Bart: Dad, do I really have to brush my teeth? Homer: No, but at least wash your mouth out with soda. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Why transformation?, Daniel Glazman | Thread | Re: Why transformation?, Pim van der Eijk |
Re: Why transformation?, Denys Duchier | Date | Uses of XSL, Carl Sjogreen |
Month |