Subject: Re: Venting From: David LeBlanc <whisper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 19:10:16 -0800 |
Amen! XTL for transformations. (Nothing to do with whatever Ms is doing that they call XTL.) XSL for styling. XSL right now is too much like a woman trying to get dressed (style) at the same time she's putting on her makeup (transformation). The two tend to get smeared together and the result is none too pretty. I also said this awhile back and got ignored. Dave LeBlanc At 04:04 PM 2/3/99 -0600, Paul Prescod wrote: >I am probably wasting my time but I want to point out that the current >organization of the XSL specification is VERY CONFUSING to my users, >students and readers and extremely FRUSTRATING to me. There is a >generalized transformation language. There is a formatting DTD. They will >probably work beautifully together someday but they do NOT BELONG IN THE >SAME SPECIFICATION any more than XSL and XLink do. > >I know we've been over this before and it is probably not useful to start >a long thread of "me toos" and "I agrees" but this is a fundamental flaw >in the two languages that we know as XSL. Please put aside the political >expediency of one spec. in favor of the clarity of two. >-- > Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself > http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco > >"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, >but she did it backwards and in high heels." > --Faith Whittlesey > > > 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 -> |
---|---|---|
Venting, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Venting, James Clark |
Re: Venting, Tyler Baker | Date | RE: Venting, Didier PH Martin |
Month |