Subject: Re: XSL with scripting From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:14:25 +0000 |
Hi. Could you expand a little on what contradiction you find? Some of my views on certain issues have changed as the result of counter arguement on this list, so I am genuinely interested if you feel you see an inconsistency. I thought I was addressing two seperate end of the debate with regard to concern, maybe my expression was sloppy. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/23/98 04:33:31 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: XSL with scripting I believe that these paragraphs contradict each other: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Hi. > > If ECMAScript where included in the XSL spec there would be no need for you [SNIP] ... > And if your concern is the adultaration of a simple declaritive style [SNIP] XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL with scripting, Flow Simulation | Thread | MSIE5b2 compliance with latest XSL-, Paul_Tihansky |
Re: XSL processor in Java for xml a, anette . engel | Date | Re: XSL processor in Java for xml a, Denis_Haskin |
Month |