Subject: Re: Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL? From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:43:26 +0000 |
Hi Oren. I almost dismissed what you said here as a simple upbeat view point until I actually thought about it and realised it was quite a novel requirement, and a very shrewed statement, that anything implimented in the XSL Rec would have to go into the XQL Rec. I love the idea, but can you see the XQL community going for it? (remembering that we have some very big, very conservative players regarding XQL as their "home turf"). Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/09/99 12:55:00 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL? I'd rather see it as locking XQL to be a superset of XSL, instead. I strongly believe that this should be a requirement of any proposed XQL language. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki 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 -> |
---|---|---|
Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?, Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?, Oren Ben-Kiki |
RE: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation lang, Didier PH Martin | Date | XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?, Oren Ben-Kiki |
Month |