Subject: Re: XSL intent survey From: info@xxxxxxxxxx (Flow Simulation) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:50:45 -0000 |
My vote: 1: I feel that the W3 organization should address the transformation vs. formatting issue: yes 2: We need separate transformation and formatting (style sheet) languages: yes If you answered "yes" or "undecided", for question (2), then: 3: The transformation language should be (based on): XSL/XQL 4: The formatting language should be (based on): XSL If you answered "no", for question (2), then: 5: The combined language should be based on: n/a 6: Any further comments: I think CSS is broken because it isn't XML, so ideally this needs addressing. That's why I would prefer an XSL formatting language rather than just using CSS. Is a formatting language strictly necessary in addition to transformation? Can't you build the formatting into the output as part of the transformation? What can't you do if you drop the fo: (like Microsoft have temporarily done). This is not an opinion but a question - I probably don't know enough about document stylesheets to understand why you need the formatting objects and perhaps someone on the list can explain. Bill Ayers (BillA@xxxxxxxxxx) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
FW: XSL intent survey, Jonathan . Vyse | Thread | Re: XSL intent survey, David Carlisle |
FW: XSL intent survey, Jonathan . Vyse | Date | XSL in IE 5.0, or is it?, Elliotte Rusty Harol |
Month |