Subject: Re: XSL is difficult to...? From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:41:08 -0500 |
Duane Nickull wrote: > > While this idea certainly may lend itself as a solution to Don's > concerns, I personally view this as being a threat to the adoption of > XSL by the masses. If everyone goes forward and starts making their own > proprietary language tags, we will fragment XSL into a completely > un-unified (spelling?) and therefore undesireable language for the > Internet. The point of architectures is that you can make your own element types and they are *not* proprietary because they are subclasses of standard ones. That isn't fragmentation. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Microsoft spokesman Ian Hatton admits that the Linux system would have performed better had it been tuned." "Future press releases on the issue will clearly state that the research was sponsored by Microsoft." http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/enterprise/1999/9904221410.asp XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL is difficult to...?, Don Park | Thread | RE: XSL is difficult to...?, Kay Michael |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod | Date | XSL toolbar for Homesite, Jonathan Borden |
Month |