Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

> It just seems to me we have XSL transformation syntax, which can be refined
> and developed, and on top of that we have proposed flow
> objects that may be *optionaly* used (sounds like a superset to me). I'm
> not understanding what the problem is with this arrangement.

Yes, except you're supposed to call them formatting objects these days,
lest you show your misspent dsssl youth. But of course they may only
optionally be used if they are there. Hence my argument against removing
them.

> Please feel free to knock holes in my statements,

Sorry. All seems reasonable to me.

David


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list