Splitting XSL

Subject: Splitting XSL
From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:23:12 +0200
Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Good point! Do we all agree that the physical organization of the
>specification is irrelevant? What we need is for the transformation and
>formatting languages to be
> a) separately named
> b) separately conformance tested

I was going to say, separate DTDs, but it caused me to wonder:

As of today, there'd be one DTD for XSL stylesheets, so we can verify the
input to an XSL processor. There was talk about being able to verify that a
given XSL stylesheet converts documents in one DTD into documents in
another. Suppose this is possible, at least in theory (BTW, is anyone
working on such a thing? It would be a lovely tool). To verify the canonical
use of XSL stylesheets - use within a full XSL processor as per the current
specs - you would _have_ to define a DTD for the 'fo' "vocabulary".

Given that there must be two DTDs, there must also be two languages, and two
names... It might turn out to be easier to convince the W3C of this then we
originally thought.

Have fun,

    Oren Ben-Kiki

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

Current Thread