Subject: Re: Part A - Generic parse.allXML function From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:07:17 +0100 (BST) |
> I don't need XSLT as it is the HTML I'm after. XSLT is the current name for what you were using! The transformation part of XSL (without the fo:xxx formatting objects) > David - errrr, I have this running just fine in IE5.0, Ah that might explain it. Remember that XSL is still in draft so that the spec changes (quite a lot) from time to time and any given implementation will only implement one version of the draft spec, and in the case of the MS implementatiion, also has some non standard differences that were never in any of the W3C drafts of XSL. So while having something run in IE5 is no doubt useful it's a bit confusing if you call it `XSL' without any further qualification as, as I said, it won't run at all on an XSL engine that conforms to the current draft. Conversely of course if you try some XSL that does conform (such as my verb.xsl example) then it doesn't run in IE5. The price we pay for using languages that are still being developed:-) David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Part A - Generic parse.allXML f, David RR Webber | Thread | Part B - Generic parse.allXML funct, David RR Webber |
Bogus Patent?, Vun Kannon, David | Date | Re: Language is not markup and mark, David Carlisle |
Month |