Re: Splitting XSL

Subject: Re: Splitting XSL
From: Jason Diamond <sendangels@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 19:49:26 -0800
I agree. An XSL implementation would be required to conform to both the
transformation and the formatting languages. This is exactly how it is now. But
implementations like XT could never claim 100% conformance. It could claim 100%
conformance to XTL or XSL-T or whatever you want to call it. At the opposite
end of the spectrum, an application could implement XFL and completely
disregard the trasnformation part of XSL. But any application claiming
conformance to XSL would be required to implement both XTL and XFL.

All this would require of the XSL WG is a paragraph stating that section 2 of
the XSL spec can be referred to as XTL and section 3, XFL. Even if they didn't
want to do that, there's nothing stopping us from calling them that.

Jason Diamond.

Rick Ross wrote:

> 2 comments, neither deeply significant...
> 1 - I really liked the idea of retaining the "binding factor" of the XSL
> name, but splitting it into two specs. The idea of XSL-T and XSL-FO had a
> lot of appeal from my POV, and may cause less anxiety that the integrity of
> XSL is at risk.
> 2 - I don't exactly know who this proposal is addressed to, but it would be
> worthwhile to make it shorter, if possible.
> Regards,
> Rick
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> >
> > Here is the text I propose. I look forward to comments.
> >
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread