Subject: RE: Observation From: Ed Nixon <ed.nixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:11:37 -0500 |
The people at InDelv had implemented FO's for their product. However, the conformance was an earlier draft. Unfortunately, their betas have disappeared from their site and been replaced by a Java DOM library. I'm note sure what has happened to the other work. Maybe they got 'lucky' and found some real money. The site is at: http://www.InDelv.com/ Regards. ...edN -----Original Message----- From: David LeBlanc [SMTP:whisper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 9:25 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Observation Actually, at this stage of development of the spec, I'd say that the Template portion of the XSL spec is further developed and better understood then the Flow Objects portion. Currently there is only one XSL implementation that I know of that implements Flow Objects called FOP. Dave LeBlanc At 09:21 PM 1/26/99 -0500, Didier PH Martin wrote: >HI Paul, > >So you mean that actual XSL implementation do not inlude formating objects >and this is why I don't see a lot of scripts with that. Do I reflect well >what you mean? > >If that is the case, XSL seems popular for its template more than for the >formatting objects. If that is the case, always, DSSSL was not so popular >not necessarily because of parenthesis but because people seems to prefer >template based stuff. > >Regards >Didier PH Martin >mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://www.netfolder.com 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: Observation, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Observation, Guy_Murphy |
entity problems, Richard Lander | Date | Namespaces and IE5b2, john . markor |
Month |