Re: Venting

Subject: Re: Venting
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:13:32 +0000
Hi Paul.

Sullied is a vague word, but I was quoting the word used in the post I was
replying to.

I understand your conviction, and appreciate your right to it. I am just of
the conviction that XSL split as you describe is no longer a style
language, but a transformation language, and a dead formatting spec.

This is an appropriate place to discuss the use of transforamtion in
styling, I don't however feel it the right place to lobby for the
destruction of the style language we are concerned with here. And yes I
would be happy if those lobbying for the demise of XSL went away :)


xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/09/99 08:02:51 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Venting

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi.
> Yes I would rather see 100 XTL languages rather than see XSL sullied.
Sullied is a pretty vague word. Most of us in favor of separating out the
transformation language believe that the XSL style language would be
stronger after that change.
> If you want to discuss the future of XTL, please go form an XTL mailing
> list.
The XSL transformation langauge is currently a part of the XSL
specification. This is the most appropriate place to discuss it unless
that changes.
I would venture that far and away most of the people in this fora are
using the transformation language without the formatting objects. Would
you really like all of them to "go away?"
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
"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:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread